Reconsidering the approach for Invasive Species Management ...
100
Reconsidering the approach for Invasive Species Management in Ontario: a more focused framework as a solution to Institutional Fragmentation by Jessica Martin A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Rural Planning and Development Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Jessica Martin, January, 2014
Transcript of Reconsidering the approach for Invasive Species Management ...
Reconsidering the approach for Invasive Species Management in Ontario: a more focused framework as a
solution to Institutional Fragmentation
by
Jessica Martin
A Thesis
presented to
The University of Guelph
In partial fulfilment of requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Rural Planning and Development
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
© Jessica Martin, January, 2014
ii
ABSTRACT
RECONSIDERING THE APPROACH FOR INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO: A MORE FOCUSED FRAMEWORK AS A SOLUTION TO
INSTITUTIONAL FRAGMENTATION
Jessica Martin Advisor: University of Guelph, 2014 Dr. John FitzGibbon
This thesis is an investigation of the disjointed movement of government and non-
government organizations that has led to institutional fragmentation in invasive species
management (ISM). This study explored management avenues at a localized level to better
understand both the successes and barriers in implementation. The goal of this research was to
provide a comprehensive perspective on ISM practices and challenges.
Expert interviews focused on the structural components comprising the process and
substance aspects of ISM. The study found that involvement in ISM across Ontario varies
greatly. A network approach was used to form an alternative framework that: 1) identifies
capacity and mandates of each involved stakeholder and 2) identifies how action is executed at
each level. As a result, this research provides a possible solution to institutional fragmentation
through the creation of a more focused framework that outlines stakeholders, scope,
responsibilities, and roles for the management of invasive species.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not have been possible without the research completed by the Ministry of
Natural Resources, which inspired this thesis.
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. John FitzGibbon, whose support, encouragement, and
guidance throughout the past two years has enabled me to complete my Graduate thesis.
Additionally, I would also like to thank all of the expert participants who provided both their
time and expertise.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page Number
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………….. 1-3
2.0 Background………………………………………………….. 4-10
3.0 Management………………………………………………….
3.1 Role of Assessment……………………………………….
3.2 Applying Assessment to Management……………………
3.2.1 Prevention……………………………………………
3.2.2 Early Detection and Rapid Response………………..
3.2.3 Control and Monitoring……………………………...
3.2.4 Restoration…………………………………………...
3.3 Connecting Concepts……………………………………...
11-23
11-13
14-21
15-16
16-17
17-21
21
22-23
4.0 Frameworks and Concepts for Planning……………………..
4.1 Integrated Pest Management……………………………...
4.2 Adaptive Management……………………………………
4.3 Environmental Governance……………………………….
24-33
24-26
26-29
29-33
5.0 Institutional Fragmentation…………………………………..
5.1 Regulatory Systems and Uncertainty……………………..
5.2 Terminology………………………………………………
34-40
34-35
36-40
6.0 Gaps in Current Literature…………………………………… 41-45
7.0 Methodology…………………………………………………
7.1 Justification for Research…………………………………
7.2 Data Collection Method…………………………………..
7.2.1 Literature Review……………………………………
7.2.2 Preliminary Survey…………………………………..
7.2.3 Interviews……………………………………………
46-50
46
47-
47
48
49-50
8.0 Findings and Discussion……………………………………...
8.1 Literature Review…………………………………………
8.2 Preliminary Survey Results……………………………….
8.3 Interviews…………………………………………………
50-68
50
51-53
53-68
v
8.3.1 Systematic vs. Standalone Strategies………………..
8.3.2 Role/Involvement in ISM……………………………
8.3.3 Availability of the Management Plan………………..
8.3.4 Implementation Approach…………………………...
8.3.5 Barriers to Associated Implementation……………...
54-56
56-59
59-62
62-65
65-68
9.0 Framework Suggestions……………………………………...
9.1 Provincial Level…………………………………………..
9.2 Conservation Authority Level…………………………….
9.3 Municipal Level…………………………………………..
9.4 Private Landowner Level…………………………………
9.5 Enforcement of Suggested Framework…………………...
69-79
72-74
74-75
75-76
77-78
78-79
10.0 Recommendations………………………………………….. 80-81
11.0 Limitations………………………………………………….. 82-83
12.0 Summary and Further Research……………………………. 84
References……………………………………………………….. 85-88
Appendices……………………………………………………….
Appendix A…………………………………………………...
Appendix B……………………………………………………
Appendix C……………………………………………………
Appendix D…………………………………………………...
89-93
89
90
91
92-93
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Content Page Number
Table 1: Gathering Information vs. Evaluating Collected Information……… 11
Table 2: Adapted Version of Elements to Consider in Assessments………… 13
Table 3: Federal Acts which intentionally focus on IAS……………………... 38-39
Table 4: Ontario Acts which intentionally focus on IAS…………………….. 39-40
Table 5: Barriers to Implementation of ISM…………………………………. 65-66
vii
LIST OF FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Content Page Number
Figure 1: Assessment and Progressional Stages for Invasive Species
Management…………………………………………………………………...
14
Figure 2: Diagram following the workflow of a Systematic Approach for
Invasive Species Management………………………………………………...
22
Figure 3: Framework for Adaptive Management…………………………….. 27
Figure 4: Venn Diagram Representation of the Structure of Organizations
that are Involved/Address Invasive Species…………………………………..
42
Figure 5: Broad-Level Representation Comparing Experts Involved in
Policy-making and Implementation of ISM…………………………………..
43
Figure 6: Comparison Graphic of Invasive Species Approaches…………….. 44
Figure 7: Graphic Display of Methodology Used in This Study……………... 47
Figure 8: Suggested Framework for ISM…………………………………….. 70
Figure 9: Provincial Positions in the Suggested Framework…………………. 72
Figure 10: Conservation Authority in the Suggested Framework……………. 74
Figure 11: Municipal Position in the Suggested Framework………………… 75
Figure 12: Private Property Owner’s Position in the Suggested Framework… 77
Figure 13: Enforcement Avenues for Implementation of ISM……………….. 78
1
CHAPTER 1.0: INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity conservation has become a growing concern; its importance in regards to
sustainability has been increasingly recognized as crucial for future preservation of healthy
ecosystems. Particularly, invasive species are a threat to the longevity of natural ecosystem
health as they disrupt natural ecosystems, can displace native species, and can carry foreign
diseases. Rittel and Webber (1973) describe wicked problems as ones that are often difficult or
impossible to solve. Invasive species can be characterized as a wicked problem: there is not a
definitive solution for eradicating all invasive species, each problem (invasive species) is unique,
and there is no single formulation or set mechanism to combat all species. Currently, invasive
species are considered the second biggest threat to endangered species, following the primary
threat of habitat destruction as a result of human influence (Evans, Wilkie, and Burkhardt, 2008).
Invasive species can be defined as species of plants, animals, insect, or aquatic life that
are not native to a region and are able to reproduce populations in an attempt to become
naturalized (Halton Region, 2012). The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) defines
invasive species as those that originate from other countries or regions and threaten or harm the
environment, economy, or society; non-native species that do not cause harm are known as
exotic or alien species (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2012). With the ability to adapt to
new environments while out-competing native species, invasive species can easily become
dominant with their unique characteristics and lack of natural predators. Particularly with
invasive species, the concern is great despite the proportion of identified species, as even small
proportions can inflict significant damage on both natural and managed ecosystems (Pimental,
Zuniga, and Morrison, 2004).
2
In recent years, the initiatives to create frameworks and strategies as approaches to
manage invasive species have occurred in a fragmented and disjointed fashion. Prior to the
OMNR publishing the Ontario Invasive Species Strategic Plan (OISSP) in May of 2012, a
strategic plan at the provincial level did not exist. Entrenched in principles of conservation and
ecosystem sustainability, the OISSP’s focus is directed at the broader level of biodiversity
conservation, but addresses approaches for invasive species management (ISM). However, prior
to the creation of the province-wide plan, certain Conservation Authorities (CAs), lower- and
upper-tier governments, and non-governmental organizations had already initiated tasks to
combat invasive species. Simultaneous plan creations have resulted in institutional fragmentation
that complicates the proposed provincial strategic plan in executing a uniform approach for
invasive species management within Ontario.
This research aims to produce an institutional analysis, providing a comprehensive
perspective on invasive species management practices and challenges. The key objectives of this
research are as follows:
• Evaluate the current and proposed management strategy of invasive species in Ontario through a review of legislation and regulations pertaining to the strategy through a literature review;
• Conduct surveys and expert interviews to gather expert advice on existing frameworks and to incorporate in the creation of a more focused framework for invasive species management;
• Develop suggestions for policy and alternative policy vehicles that will guide implementation of invasive species management.
With these objectives in mind, the remaining content covers all aspects that comprise the
final product of this thesis: literature review, methodology, findings and discussion, suggested
framework, additional suggestions, as well as limitations and opportunities for future research.
While literature being reviewed originates and focuses on various geographic locations, the
3
following section focuses largely on the provincial context of Ontario. In addition, surveys and
expert interviews delve further into management practices and challenges that are experienced by
those engaging in invasive species management. Compiled results form suggestions for an
alternative framework and avenues for implementation that are presented in the final section.
4
CHAPTER 2.0: BACKGROUND
Invasive species management does not solely involve biologists, ecologists, and
conservation authorities. The impact of invasive species can be most easily understood through
an economic discipline as invasives have direct economic costs as their ability to spread and
cause serious damage occurs at a rapid rate. Currently in Canada, there are several partners that
address invasive species through associated legislation, but involvement in terms of management
varies. For example, the Canada Shipping Act and the Transportation of Goods Act are both
Federal Legislation that include clauses about invasive species and are associated with several
partners such as the Canada Border Services Agency and Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, 2009). A list of the partners and Federal Legislation that
address invasive species in some way can be found in Appendix A. The remaining information
covered in this section will highlight sectors that can be considered pathways for the introduction
of invasive species.
Trade and Invasive Species
Tourism is a passive activity that is also considered a form of trade, as people travel to a
resource instead of resources being delivered to a destination (National Agricultural Research
Organization, 2008; Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). This form of trade can affect both the spread of
invasive species and negatively deter people from traveling to invasive-infested areas. For
example, zebra mussels are an invasive species that have a profound economic effect on the
Great Lakes. From a tourism perspective, zebra mussels litter beaches and lead to increased
mercury and lead in fish that are caught for consumption (Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). In
addition, this cost is translated to the sport fishing industry, as threats of invasions approximate
5
$4 billion per year, where an average cost to boat owners reaches almost $660 per boat (Pejchar
and Mooney, 2009).
Another form of trade is through the transport of resources from an origin to a
destination. In Ontario, trade legislation is covered under the National American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and products that enter into Canada are monitored under the following
Federal Legislation: Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and
Transport Canada (USFWS, 2009). The Government of Canada (2004) also realizes the impacts
that invasives can have on International trade relationships and have become increasingly
concerned with finding measures to prevent the import and export of invasives. As seen with the
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Alberta cattle, the immediate closure of export
markets had profound negative economic impacts on the agricultural industry (Government of
Canada, 2004). Though penalties exist for those who are caught disregarding legislation, the
transport of plants and aquatic organisms can be introduced intentionally where it can eventually
invade native organisms (NARO, 2008). As a result, globalization – both in the form of leisure
travel and transport of goods – risks the spread of invasive species either intentionally or non-
intentionally.
Agriculture and Invasive Species
Particularly in the agriculture sector, the movement of plants and animals from a point of
origin to a destination is largely intentional, as people depend on resources for survival. Indeed,
in Ontario, where seasonal change is prominent, society depends on crops and resources from
tropical or sub-tropical climatic zones to fulfill a balanced diet and for food security. While the
movement of agricultural resources is intentional, the introduction of pests and diseases that can
6
be carried by such crops can be an unintentional consequence. Diseases and contaminants that
have been carried by both crops and animals have been introduced, lending to the severity of
issues both in ecosystems and in human disease (NARO, 2008). The yellow star thistle
(Centaurea solstialis) is an example of a plant that is threatening to cows’ digestive systems,
which contributes to approximately $8 million US annually in lost livestock (Pejchar and
Mooney, 2009).
The evolutionary ability of invasive plants and weeds are particularly dangerous for the
agricultural sector as they have the ability to evolve in response to native plants and crops
(Mooney and Cleland, 2001; Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). With the ability to adapt and interact
with native plants, invasive plants also have the ability to adapt to new environments. Mooney
and Cleland (2001) discuss the challenges with changes to biotic environments, as there is a lack
of control and hence it is necessary to observe biological patterns over time following the
introduction of new biotas. In addition, comprehensive data covering environmental and societal
costs of the impacts of invasives are largely unaccounted for in even the best-documented cases
(Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). There are instances where invasive species have positive impacts,
such as an invasive tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) in Florida as it aids in honey production, but
can be detrimental if this tree invades the Everglades (Pejchar and Mooney, 2009).
Vertebrate pests in the agricultural sector can also have a negative economic and
environmental impact on native ecosystems. For example, Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) originated
from Eurasia and North Africa but were introduced in the United States for hunting purposes and
they have drastically changed the vegetative landscape and have become a serious problem in
Florida (Pimental et al., 2004; Vitousek, Loope, and Westbroks, 1996). Feral pigs have the
7
ability to damage grain, various crops, livestock, and transmit diseases to both livestock and
humans (Vitousek et al., 1996; Pimental et al., 2004; Pejchar and Mooney, 2009).
In an Ontario context, the brown marmorated stinkbug (Halyomorpha halys) is an
example of an invertebrate pest that originated in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China and has a
unique trait of its ability to travel long distances (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food,
2012). This invasive species is particularly dangerous due its wide preference for type of crop,
specifically specialty crops, using plants as reproductive hosts (OMAF, 2012). As per the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) the Hamilton area experienced the nuisance
of stinkbugs in residential homes in the fall of 2012. Though this species has yet to inflict
damage in the agricultural sector in Ontario, it is important to establish prevention mechanisms
because of how prominent the industry is in Ontario.
The implementation of cost-benefit analysis can be useful in invasive species
management, particularly in the agricultural sector, in order to compare primarily the economic
costs and the environmental benefits that a species may have. The difficulty is that there is not a
uniform distribution of costs and benefits of each species; these can vary both geographically and
based on type of invasive species. The challenges of distributional differences are similar to
many other environmental issues: “those who benefit do not pay the costs and those who lose are
not compensated” (Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). On average, the OMNR reported that invasive
plants cost the Canadian agriculture and forest industries approximately $7.3 billion each year.
Forestry and Invasive Species
Australia, Canada, and the United States have some of the most extensive data regarding
the extent of invasions, compared to other countries around the world; each contains
8
approximately 1500 invasive plants (Vitousek et al., 1996). Reference to forestry and invasive
species can include, but is not limited to, commercial forestry, agro-forestry, erosion control or
landscaping (NARO, 2008). Changes to the vegetative landscape can have a negative impact on
both forest health and native animal species as seen in the United States (Pimental et al., 2004). It
is estimated that roughly 138 invasive trees and shrub species have been introduced in U.S.
forests, displacing both trees and native animals (Pimental et al., 2004). Simple ecosystem
processes that are required for basic forest and ecosystem health such as decomposition,
hydrology, and nutrient recycling can become permanently altered by invasive species (Vitousek
et al., 1996). In addition, Pejchar and Mooney (2009) reviewed case studies of Eucalyptus trees
in South Africa and found that invasive trees such as the Eucalyptus contribute to more intense
fires and increased erosion as a result of high evapotranspiration, which has had negative effects
on pollination services, ecotourism, and native plants used for tea and medicine. Similarly, weed
tree species in the U.S. have been reported to have both environmental and economic impacts as
some types are toxic to cattle and, in addition, cost an estimated $500 million U.S. annually to
control (Pimental et al., 2004).
Particularly in the Ontario forestry sector, the OMNR has partnerships that work together
to ensure forest health and focus on mitigating invasive tree diseases and pests such as Butternut
Canker, White Pine Blister Rust and Emerald Ash Borer (OMNR, 2012). At the federal (Canada)
level, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) are
the primary partnerships that work closely to prevent and manage invasive forest pests (OMNR,
2012). Additional groups closely involved in plant and forest health are: the Ontario Invasive
Plant Council (OIPC), the Forest Pest Management Forum, the Ontario Vegetation Management
Association and the Ontario Weed Committee (OMNR, 2012).
9
Fisheries and Invasive Species
Aquatic invasive species are arguably the most difficult to prevent and track as there are
several major pathways in which they can travel, such as boats, trailers, and angling equipment
(Larson, Phillips-Mao, Quiram, Sharpe, Sugita, and Weiler, 2011). Additionally, it is much more
difficult to observe changes within these aquatic ecosystems because changes occur below water.
An example of this difficulty could be seen by a project conducted by the OMNR to eradicate
Round Goby from the Pefferlaw Creek. Approximately $460,000 was spent to eradicate and
prevent this species from moving downstream into Lake Simcoe, but the project was
unsuccessful (OMNR, 2012). Monitoring water bodies for invasive species is labor-intensive and
time consuming and, furthermore, it can be difficult to measure success.
For another example, Zebra Mussels function to filter toxins from water but they also
clog intake pipes for municipal water that impairs flow and contributes to additional costs to
maintain infrastructure (Pejchar and Mooney, 2009; Larson et al., 2011). However, the
ecological and economic value of these bodies of water has decreased due to various invasive
species (Pejchar and Mooney, 2009). Other mollusks, such as the Asian Clam, have caused
serious damage in U.S. aquatic systems (Pimental et al., 2004). With European origins, mollusks
and other harmful aquatic species are a result of increased trade and transport by boats.
Similarly, newly-introduced alien fish species in the U.S. have been reported at
approximately 138 new species (Pimental et al., 2004). Though some alien fish offer benefits to
the sport fishing industry, which contributes approximately $69 billion to the U.S. economy, a
significant proportion of the sport fishing industry suffers from economic losses of
approximately $5.4 billion annually (Pimental et al., 2004). The European Green Crab is another
example of an invasive aquatic species that has been associated with losses in the soft-shell clam
10
industry in England (UK) and Nova Scotia (Canada), as it destroys infrastructure and preys on
native oysters and crabs (Lafferty and Kuris, 1996; Pimental et al., 2004).
Within Ontario, the Great Lakes function as both a resource and recreational site but have
been drastically affected by human influence and invasive species. The OMNR reported 186
non-native species within the Great Lakes Basin as of 2009, which included: the Sea Lamprey,
Zebra Mussel, Round Goby, Spiny Water Flea, and Purple Loosestrife (OMNR, 2013). The
geographic location of the Great Lakes, in regards to connecting water bodies, makes it
vulnerable in terms of optional pathways for invasive species. As discussed earlier, Zebra
Mussels threaten commercial and recreational fishing as they spread rapidly and at long distances
(OMNR, 2013). Currently, various partnerships with organizations such as, but not limited to,
Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) and Great Lakes Commission Aquatic Nuisance
Species provide information and awareness for invasive species management methods. In
addition, Environment Canada, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada are partners that assist in incorporating federal legislation, such as the Fisheries Act and
Oceans Act, into practice. The examples shown above emphasize the economic costs of invasive
species as well as the difficulty for control and management. As invasive species management is
a relatively new scientific area, there is a need for a reactive approach for current situations, but
there is also opportunity to incorporate proactive initiatives into future management strategies.
11
CHAPTER 3.0: MANAGEMENT
3.1 Role of Assessment
The role of assessment is an important stage of invasive species management.
Information collected at this stage allows for identification of both species and management
strategies, establishment of management objectives and thresholds, determination of most
effective methods, and the evaluation of program outcomes (USFWS, 2009). In addition, a
preliminary understanding of the invasion provides rationale and guidance for future direction in
the management process.
Preliminary assessments of a site that may be/have the potential to be influenced by
invasive species allows for the gathering and evaluation of information. The gathering of
information may come from various sources, while the evaluation of the collected information
can aid in the progression of management. Table 1 highlights the difference between both
aspects of conducting an assessment. While the extent of assessments can vary depending on the
type of invasive being studied (e.g. aquatic and terrestrial), the role of assessment is a standard
concept that can apply to the management of all types of invasives.
Table 1: Gathering Information Vs. Evaluating Collected Information (USFWS, 2009).
12
Assessments of invasive sites are necessary elements of both integrated and adaptive
approaches, as such frameworks are knowledge-intensive and require in-depth understanding of
unique sites. Several scholars use the concept of ‘risk assessment’ as an approach to
understanding management and prevention efforts to minimize the risk of invasive species
damage (Wilson, Gairifo, Gibson, Arianoutsou, Bakar, Baret, Celesti Grapow, DiTomaso,
Dufour-Dror, Kueffer, Kull, Hoffman, Impson, Loope, Marchante, Marchante, Moore, Murphy,
Tassin, Witt, Zeni, and Richardson, 2011; Baker et al., 2005). However, many academics have
critiqued the sole focus on risk assessment and analysis, stating that it should not be considered a
sole concept but rather as an important element in the preliminary stages of identification and
plan generation (Durant, Fiorino, and O’Leary, 2004). Alternatively, the USFWS (2009) explains
risk assessment phases that include problem formulation, and analysis. This has been categorized
by some as being included in the preliminary inventory gathering and, while both have different
terms to describe the action taken, each concept is essentially measuring the same thing: degree
of the invasion. While a comprehensive perspective on risk assessment and risk analysis is
outside of the scope of this research, it is important to recognize the concept as an interacting
element among others that are used in the preliminary stages of invasive species management
approaches.
Basic considerations for conducting assessments require the understanding of four main
elements: 1) goals and objectives, 2) scale and scope, 3) data type and detail, and 4) analysis and
decision-making (USFWS, 2009). Table 1 was produced by the USFWS and defines the purpose
of each stage.
13
Some types of assessments can also include an element of characterization of both existing
species as well as of sites. While it may be helpful to incorporate this element within an
assessment, this type of element is largely focused on predictive trends and risk analysis as
addressed above (USFWS, 2009). Predictive modeling also has its unique challenges, as it uses
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to identify possible site attributes in the future that is
determined from a select site. Using tools such as GIS allow a user to capture a moment in time,
which is a very unique glimpse of ever-changing ecosystems.
Table 2: Adapted Version of Elements to Consider in Assessments (USFWS, 2009).
14
3.2 Applying Assessment to Management
The outcome of an assessment provides information regarding the stage of invasion at a
specific site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (2009) summarize the three main stages with
the example of invasive plants, which are: introduction, colonization, and naturalization. Figure 1
outlines the stages of invasion progression along the horizontal axis and shows the stages of
invasive species management at displayed by the logistic curve1. Larson et al. (2011) discuss the
importance of understanding mechanisms that facilitate invasions in order to define the most
appropriate control measures. Prior to determining a management strategy, it is important to
understand the stage of invasion in order to determine the type of strategy that will be used to
manage the invasion.
While conducting a preliminary assessment provides the basis for making management
decisions, management decisions of invasive species can be understood as a two-tiered process.
Firstly, management can be understood as a set of elements that comprise a systematic approach,
Notes: 1 Although the graphic provides connections between invasion and stage of response, it is specific to plant invasion.
Figure 1: Assessment and Progressional Stages for Invasives Species Management (USFWS, 2009).
15
where the elements represent a specific phase that an invasion has influenced2. Secondly,
management can also be understood as the actions carried out to treat various forms of invasives,
also known as the management method. Generally, these methods are identified and chosen upon
distinguishing which stage an invasion has influenced. The literature highlights four common
stages of invasive species management: 1) prevention, 2) early detection and rapid response, 3)
containment and control, and 4) restoration. While there are varying differences in terms used for
each category name, it is generally agreed upon that four main stages comprise the management
framework. These categories are further elaborated in the following section.
3.2.1 Prevention
Given the difficulties of managing complex issues such as invasive species, pro-active
approaches are stressed within the literature. This stage requires understanding and knowledge
of: potential invaders, vectors and pathways, mechanism of reproduction and spread, and
conditions that encourage spread (USFWS, 2009). Preventative approaches are imperative to
avoiding the spread of invasive species, while ensuring longevity and sustainable ecosystems
(OMNR, 2012; Park, 2004; Baker, Cannon, Bartlett, and Barker, 2005). Preventative measures
offer many benefits such as cost-effectiveness, less time-consuming, and more effective control
(USFWS, 2009). As our society tends to use economic statistics for validation of environmental
action, preventative measures far outweigh costs in a cost-benefit analysis.
Simultaneously, the complex characteristics of successful prevention also exist. Firstly,
some habitats are more susceptible to invasive species and hence may be harder to prevent
invasions. Secondly, it is impossible to monitor all pathways and instances of cross-
2 The term ‘influence’ is used rather than referring to a phase that has been ‘reached’, as the stage of prevention is one that has been influenced by cases of an invasive species, but not necessarily suffered from an invasion.
16
contamination. This makes cross-jurisdictional communication particularly important as
invasives can easily spread over geographic distances without warning. Thirdly, while many
legislative documents exist that address preventative measures for invasives, the extent of
enforcement has not been widely investigated. For example, there are several legislative
documents within Ontario that mention invasive species management and offer some guidance
towards reducing the spread and pathways of invasive species. While such preventative
documents exist, there is a lack of strong evidence to determine the extent to which such
measures are implemented. Evidence of this was found in a study conducted by Smith (2012) of
federal and provincial (Ontario) Acts involving invasive alien species in Ontario. While there are
many Acts that touch on the subject, the largest emphasis is placed on the prevention stage
(Smith, 2012).
3.2.2 Early Detection and Rapid Response
If an invasive species manages to surpass the prevention stage, early detection and rapid
response offers the next best approach to a sound outcome as a reactive approach. Such an
approach requires three key steps: early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response
(USFWS, 2009). Biological advances have been characterized (in the past) as colonizing at a
slower rate, followed by rapid expansion and naturalization (Park, 2004). For this reason,
eradication methods are most effective and most widely used in the early detection and rapid
response as it is more cost-effective and easier to eradicate smaller sites that have been impacted
by invasives. Management has become more efficient as there have been advances in
technology, such as GIS and other mapping software, that allow for inventory/survey mapping in
order to determine the extent of the invasion. Additionally, mapping/inventory software can also
17
aid in determining new target areas to monitor for preventing further spread. Alternatively, in
some cases such as with Noxious Weeds, knowledgeable personnel may know the appropriate
herbicide and treatment can begin (Park, 2004). However, such response is not always simple,
and eradication may be delayed until more information is collected.
The delay of response caused by demand for deeper understanding of the species
invasion under review can be problematic for several reasons. Firstly, misunderstanding of a
species could result in rapid expansion. This could increase the cost of eradication, making it
much more difficult to eradicate. Additionally, this could further complicate feasibility of a
management plan, as well as monitoring, in the future as invasions affect a greater extent from
first detection. The OMNR (2012) states that guidelines for management approaches offer
benefits to early detection and rapid response stage, particularly for identification and rapid
response to minimize the threat of spread to wider geographic extents. However, academics
involved in risk analysis approaches disagree, stating that management measures must always be
justified by risk analysis (Baker et al., 2005). In addition, Wilson et al. (2011) state that
eradication upon early detection should be set as a “management goal more often to reduce the
invasion debt” (1031).
3.2.3 Control and Monitoring
As an invasive species expands over greater distances, control options and strategies
increase both in terms of methods and resources. Methods of control depend on the type of
species, the extent that has been impacted, considerations for surrounding habitats and
implications for surrounding ecosystem damage. Though many methods exist, some are more
prominent than others with evidence of varying degrees of success. Management methods for
18
invasive species face many barriers as carrying out such tasks can be costly, labor-intensive, and
limited by funding availability (Larson et al., 2011). One of the distinct factors that contribute to
these barriers is that management methods require a holistic understanding of the presence and
impact of an invasive species; tracking the extent of an invasion, creating a plan, and executing
the plan can only be accomplished in phases and suffers from a time lag. Cost-benefit analysis is
commonly mentioned as a tool to assess the priority of an invasive species, and it is this tool that
provides evidence that it can be more costly to discount than react to invasive species. Because
of the wide array of negative impacts caused by invasive species (ecological damage, economic
costs, human/animal disease, loss of functionality and native species), involved agencies are
required to react to ensure the longevity of environmental, economic, and social objectives
(Larson et al., 2011).
Existing control methods can be categorized into three main areas: physical, chemical,
and biological. While they are separated into three categories, the user may use different methods
in conjunction with one another for optimal results. Once an area has undergone management
steps, the site requires monitoring to ensure that management was successful and further
treatment will not be necessary. The following presents, in detail, the three main mechanisms for
management, as well as examples of each.
Physical Control
Physical methods such as dredging, dams, traps, electrical fields, and trenching are
increasingly being used as prevention mechanisms against the movement of invasives (OMNR,
2012; Baker et al., 2005). Physical approaches to invasive species management include manual
tasks to “remove, kill, injure or alter growing conditions” of invasive species (USFWS, 2009).
19
This type of management method is costly and labor-intensive and can require careful planning,
particularly in environmentally sensitive areas to ensure reduced impact. Examples of physical
removal include, but are not limited to, mechanical harvesting, hand-pulling, cutting, and/or
destroying infested materials (OMNR, 2012). Requirements for the use of physical methods
generally rely on tools and equipment that are readily available and can be used by a majority of
people. On the contrary, the extent of physical methods can vary greatly based on scale of the
issue and characteristics of the invasive species (USFWS, 2009). Implementing physical
management approaches can be beneficial because of their flexibility and the ability for these
approaches to be used in small and localized areas or in larger areas. When working in small
localized areas, physical approaches are more likely to have lower environmental impacts, but
can have more significant or “non-target” effects when implemented over larger geographic
extents (USFWS, 2009).
Chemical Control
Chemical forms of control are one of the primary methods used for invasive plants and
have the potential to provide efficient and effective results (USFWS, 2009). Unlike physical
methods, specific training is required to use chemical methods such as pesticides. The OMNR
(2012) defines chemical control as the use of poison, such as pesticides, to eradicate invasive
species and ensure that the pesticides used have an insignificant effect on remaining ecosystems.
On the contrary, Baker et al. (2005) argue that the likelihood of the available products will
decrease as environmental legislation pushes towards the use of alternatives that are safer for the
environment. Additionally, certain sectors such as the agricultural industry will be the most
affected as limitations in chemical methods is likely to decrease in the future (Baker et al., 2005).
20
Pesticides are used in aquatic and terrestrial environments. In Ontario, the Pesticide Act
and Ontario Regulation 914 is a provincial guideline that outlines rules and requirements for
those intending to use pesticides (OMNR, 2012). For aquatic environments specifically, the
Ministry of Environment (MOE) monitors the process for applications for water extermination
permits, which is required in addition to a water exterminator’s license (OMNR, 2012). These
rules apply to pesticide use in lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, or wetlands in response to invasive
species. For terrestrial environments, Ontario’s Cosmetic Pesticide Ban was put into effect in
2009 and prohibits the use of pesticides on lawns, gardens, and school yards, but the province
continues to allow the use of pesticides that are targeted towards protecting biodiversity and
natural resources (OMNR, 2012).
Biological Control
Biological control of invasive species is considered an environmentally friendly form of
control. The OMNR (2012) defines biological control methods as mechanisms used to reduce or
eliminate invasive species through the release of a living organism. The living organism used is
generally an enemy of invasive species that is used to recover natural controls of native species
while reducing dominance of invasives (USFWS, 2009). Biological controls either eat or destroy
invasive species or, alternatively, cause them to become diseased. Like bio-pesticides, biological
mechanisms are more appropriate for containment and control purposes than for eradicating
populations of invasive species (Baker et al., 2005; USFWS, 2009). A case study conducted by
Wilson et al. (2011) found increasing success in battling small-scale invasions of Australian
Acacias and has recognized its strength for being the most “cost-effective, sustainable, and
reliable option”. Similarly, Ontario has used beetles (Galerucella calmariensis and Galerucella
21
pusilla) in an attempt to manage Purple Loosestrife, a plant species that invades wetlands
(OMNR, 2012). Although this method is recognized for its strengths, proposals for this type of
control require an understanding of the ecosystem in which they are being released as well as
follow-up monitoring (OMNR, 2012; USFWS, 2009). Additionally, this form of management
method is subject to time-series lag, as continual monitoring is required in order to assess the
efficiency of the biological controls that have been released.
3.2.4 Restoration
Compared to the previous phases, the literature has limited coverage on the restoration
phase. The restoration phase is characterized by invasive species that have become naturalized
and extensive, where management is very difficult. Management at this stage is characterized by
high costs, the requirement of more resources, and intensive labour (Wilson et al., 2011;
USFWS, 2009). Additionally, at this stage there may not be feasible control options with the
conventional methods discussed above, as native species may not be sufficient for habitat
reconstruction following the removal of invasives (USFWS, 2009). However, for high-valued
areas such as watersheds or environmentally sensitive areas, restoration may be considered if the
geographic area is relatively small and hence feasible management options may exist. Referring
back to the role of assessments, an assessment for an area where an invasive species has become
naturalized can aid in determining if: 1) viable options exist for an area that requires extensive
restoration and 2) if the options will produce benefits to the surrounding habitat.
22
3.3 Connecting Concepts
The following diagram illustrates the connection of stages that are highlighted within the
literature. This graphic shows the workflow of stages throughout the process of invasive species
management that was discussed previously. Although this section was not divided into the
categories that are present on the graphic, they have been addressed in the same order and
provide a visual workflow of each stage.
Figure 2: Diagram following the workflow of a systematic approach for invasive species management.
*Note: Consultation of management methods is most prominent in the “control” phase.
Integrated approaches are characterized by the basic elements of the concepts and managements
phases that were previously discussed. The concepts and management phases previously
23
discussed are the basic elements of mechanisms referred to as integrated approaches for invasive
species. Over the past several decades, there has been a shift in approach towards invasive
species from ad hoc removal to a systematic and ecosystem approaches. As knowledge of
theories and principles regarding best practice methods has become better documented, experts
have recognized that elements of a systematic framework can be incorporated in varying ways.
Integrated Pest Management and Adaptive Management are examples of the most recognized
integrated approaches for invasive species management. Such approaches incorporate the
elements presented in Section 4.2, while striving to produce the most effective results through
innovative processes and is further discussed in the following section.
24
CHAPTER 4.0: FRAMEWORKS AND CONCEPTS FOR PLANNING
Frameworks and strategic plans for invasive species management assist in achieving
goals and objectives in the management process. Guidelines address elements such as identifying
responsibility and involved agencies, timeline, direction, inventory and surveys, management
methods, and monitoring. As management progresses, having a framework or strategic plan can
also serve as a reference point for support in decision-making and problem solving (USFWS,
2009). Additionally, a plan may be beneficial for addressing the following: consistency,
engaging stakeholders, seeking funding opportunities, and personnel changes (USFWS, 2009).
The following will discuss integrated pest management and adaptive management for invasive
species management, which are two of the primary frameworks illustrated in the literature.
4.1 Integrated Pest Management
Integrated pest management (IPM) is a framework for invasive species management that
has been implemented for several decades, particularly in the agricultural sector, and focuses on
an integrated approach in order to produce effective results while minimizing risk (USFWS,
2009). IPM was the result of the movement by many government bodies to reduce pesticide use
in response to the negative impacts caused by such chemicals (Panizzi, 2013). Over time, IPM
approaches have evolved in terms of remedial measures that ensure the reduction of pests while
understanding the consequences of using various mechanisms, while also conserving natural
enemies (Brewer and Goodell, 2012; USFWS, 2009). Similar to an economic approach, the
establishment of action thresholds aids in guiding implementation of IPM. This approach aims
to provide the most cost-effective, low-risk option for pest management while building
25
consensus with stakeholders and delegating responsibilities for best practice strategies and
implementation success (USFWS, 2009).
During the first several decades, the application of IPM at various scales, both within and
beyond individual fields, created issues regarding incentives for farmers (Brewer and Goodell,
2012). While the choice to implement within a single farm field provided environmental benefits
and followed a market-based approach, when IPM activities were applied regionally it was found
that the results showed greater long-term (including environmental) benefits that extended to the
community (Brewer and Goodell, 2012). However, Brewer and Goodell (2012) argue that both
farming community investment and support from the community are both drivers that have been
incorporated to overcome issues regarding incentives. Similarly, Panizzi (2013) observed that
this method began to decline in the 2000s, as focus shifted towards increased growth of multiple
crops away from monocrops. Additionally, the relationship between public and private agencies
should extend involvement over the long-term and focus on combining market-based and public-
based incentives that will produce optimal benefits (Brewer and Goodell, 2012). Without strong
political support, applied IPM is difficult because it contributes to a lack of funding for large-
scale initiatives as seen in the United States. Gray et al. (2009) provided several reasons for the
weakening political support that provides challenges for IPM implementation: insignificant
decrease of pesticide in all cropping systems, difficulty in quantifying success, unclear goals of
IPM, and an increased interest in organic practices. Reiterating the importance of funding and
assisting developing countries with IPM, some experts emphasize the importance of support
from a food production standpoint as environmental concerns, specifically within densely
populated areas, provide concern for future sustainable food sources (Gray, Ratcliffe, Rice,
Swinton, Norton, Higley, and Ponti, 2009).
26
Unlike the adoption of pesticide use, the adoption of IPM illustrates a slow increase in the
use of newer theory and technology (Kogan and Bajwa, 1999; Brewer and Goodell, 2012). As
government regulations have changed rules on methods of control, Kogan and Bajwa (1999)
argue that this global reality is only tangible in some privileged countries and exists only in
theory in others and argues that as the reduction in pesticide use may be considered a successful
indicator of IPM, but without clear criteria could, in practice, lead to increased use of pesticides.
This trend of increased use of pesticides was seen within developing countries in the 1990s
(Gray et al., 2009).
Particularly in Canada, IPM was adopted in 1997 and an expert committee was formed
called the Expert Committee on Integrated Pest Management Survey of IPM in Canada. Within
Ontario specifically, the Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC)(2012) lists two active IPM
initiatives: Ontario’s Food System (since 2002) and Ontario’s Environmental Farm Plan Program
(since 1993). The Canadian Horticultural Council (2012) indicates several challenges with IPM
implementation, such as a lack of concrete research, a need for interdisciplinary approaches, and
a long-term research commitment. In addition, stronger international ties of registration,
combined with recognition and certification of IPM production and tailored crop insurance, are
all aspects that, if improved, could contribute to the success of IPM (CHC, 2012).
4.2 Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is a concept that was first applied in the late 1970s in natural resource
management as a process that seeks to enable complex decision-making through experimental
management in order to generate new knowledge (USFWS, 2009). This form of management has
27
long been considered a beneficial framework due to its strength in ability to provide potential
solutions for issues of large-scale capacity (Park, 2004). In addition, adaptive management has
been incorporated in a wide range of settings (ecological, social, and institutional) that has
contributed to further strengthen the framework as it has clear flexibility and justification for its
use (Evans et al., 2008). Though it can be viewed as an experimental approach, the goal of this
framework is not a means end, and should also not be considered a ‘trial and error’ process.
Rather, the adaptive management process aims to emphasize learning throughout the process and
enhance and create more innovative and effective decisions (Williams, Szaro, and Shapiro,
2009).
For problems involving great uncertainty, adaptive management provides a strong basis
for reducing uncertainties that can act as barriers otherwise (Williams et al., 2009; USFWS,
Figure 3: Framework for Adaptive Management (Williams et al., 2009).
28
2009; Evans et al., 2008; Berkes, Folke, and Colding, 2000). Particularly for conservation
projects, experimental management may be the most beneficial option in order to determine the
most effective control method. The cyclical nature of the operational elements involved in the
adaptive framework (shown in Figure 3) guide users to discover the successes and challenges
throughout, which is enabled by the flexibility of the process (Williams et al., 2009; USFWS,
2009). In addition, Berkes et al. (2000) found that adaptive management has an advantage over
other approaches as it incorporates a combination of scientific research and experimentation that
focuses on progressive learning through feedbacks. Incorporating an adaptive management
approach for invasive species is fitting because the framework requires the completion of
research and understanding of feedbacks (Larson et al., 2011). Similar to Williams et al. (2009),
Larson et al. (2011) concluded that management of invasive species requires managers to view
the issue at a broader scale while creating long-term strategies that address all aspects of root
causes of invasive species, and while placing equal emphasis on various factors such as
environmental, social, and economic aspects of invasive species impacts. On the contrary, Evans
et al. (2008) concluded that adaptive management frameworks should focus more on
participatory action and input from non-institutional stakeholders than on control methods, as
control efforts are likely to emerge from the use of adaptive management frameworks. In
addition, Wilson et al. (2011) add that trans-boundary sharing of information provides benefits
such as limiting potential future invasions, particularly due to the nature of invasive species
being a cross-jurisdictional issue.
Adaptive management and IPM are both examples of using more traditional systematic
approaches in varying ways. Innovation in the approach towards invasive species management
can be beneficial as more current ideas and processes are available with advances in technology.
29
Evans et al. (2008) highlight the need for participatory action and involvement of community as
some of the key ingredients for successful environmental governance regimes.
4.3 Environmental Governance
The literature recognizes differing positions on global environmental governance,
particularly between powerful political parties. Although acknowledgement exists, seldom are
suggestions made for solutions to these problems. Political disagreement has largely contributed
to fragmentation and non-action, as those in positions of power may choose to solve issues in
varying ways. As illustrated by Jordan and Lenschow (2010), political commitment is prominent
but the application of schemes for environmental policy is disjointed. In invasive species
management, this is particularly difficult and complex, as cross-boundary issues require
collaboration and similar use of mechanisms for successful management.
Environmental governance regimes require a shift in the way people perceive and act
towards the environment. Many policies and regulations regarding environmental issues have
revolved around command and control approaches; however, that approach is transitioning as
agencies shift their focus towards participatory approaches for decision-making. The transition to
more participatory approaches is fitting as those involved have a common interest, which is
explained by Glasbergen (1998) as the link between the object and subject. Additionally,
Glasbergen (1998) presented five types of governance highlighted within the literature: self-
regulation, co-operative management, regulatory control, market regulation, and civil society
contextual control.
Shifted perceptions and attitudes towards environmental issues can be beneficial as new
governance paradigms challenge traditional management approaches, encouraging innovation,
30
process redesign, and reconnection with stakeholders (Durant et al., 2004). In addition, new
governance approaches have benefits such as forming better administrative capacities and
increasing transparency while offering policy learning over lengthier processes (Jordan and
Lenschow, 2010). Inqram and Ullery (1980) use water pollution control legislation to
demonstrate that fragmented structure and decision-making mechanisms can generate innovative
policy. It is argued that through disagreement, innovative policy can arise as it “promotes
entrepreneurship, encourages competition, minimizes costs of change, and promotes legitimacy.”
(Inqram and Ullery, 1980, 679). On the contrary, Fiorino (2006) argues that old regulation has
impeded the ability to create innovative regulation. Additionally, the division of laws, programs,
and agencies also creates complex situations as they are generally along “medium-specific lines
that tend to fragment regulatory strategies, leading to missed opportunities and higher-than-
necessary compliance costs” (Fiorino, 2006, 75). The shift in perception also requires a shift in
the formation of regulation. As Fiorino (2006) describes, society places emphasis on legal
compliance, a concept that is entrenched in old regulation but results in more emphasis on
legality than on environmental value.
Additional recent literature emphasizes the difficulty in the transition between “rule-
based” to “ruler-based” approaches; whereas the former relies on compliance with rules and
regulations, the latter is focused on results-based approaches (Durant et al., 2004). Particularly
with biodiversity conservation and the natural environment, rule-based approaches are not
sufficient for providing solutions to such problems, as they fail to encourage collaborative,
holistic, and cost-effective approaches (Durant et al., 2004). Such approaches place pressure on
supporting agencies to perform services in place of resources that are not provided by the
government, as a rule-based approach lacks clear guidance the ability to effectively enforce
31
coordination. Berry and Berry (2007) discuss the importance of innovative policy for
behavioural change specifically for environmental issues that cross various governmental
jurisdictions and state that problem severity is an important determinant of motivation to change.
In order to gain acceptance and support for new policy, it is imperative that innovative
policy is designed to include, and cater to, all stakeholders. The success of policy, therefore,
depends on both the design and capacity for implementation. Hey, Jacob, and Volkery (2006)
suggest three types of criteria for governance as it relates to output legitimacy: 1) capacity for
political action, 2) degree of implementation, and 3) degree of achieving original policy goals.
Additionally, emphasis is placed on better understanding output-legitimacy because it has been
found to closely correlate with input-legitimacy (Hey et al., 2006). In addition, Jordan and
Lenschow (2010) argue that innovative policy improves legitimacy, as the mechanisms used in
new governance regimes are likely to place emphasis on transparency and public participation.
However, environmental governance as a new governance regime has its challenges that consist
of, but are not limited to, poor record of implementation and failure to achieve original policy
objectives (Hey et al., 2006). Benvenisti and Downs (2007) further argue the limitations of new
governance architectures, stating that powerful “states” may choose fragmentation in order to
maintain control because it offers the option of serving the best interests of those in power if
difficult policy options are the only alternative.
Governance decision-making can also be understood simply as changes to content and
process (Hey et al., 2006). Hey et al. (2006) describe content as a type of chosen action that
affects obligation by both the government and members, while process describes the policy,
regulation, and/or principles to guide implementation. The elements that comprise the basis for
governance regimes are well researched, specifically in the political sciences field. Known for its
32
ability to be applied across various fields while catering to different approaches, environmental
governance has varying meanings to different disciplines. For example, political scientists have
historically placed emphasis on the relationship between frameworks and the broader
institutional setting (Paavola, Gouldson, and Kluvankova-Oravska, 2009). Also emphasized in
the systems literature, scholars such as Berkes and Folke (1998) and Fischer-Kowalski and
Weisz (1999) argue that humans and the environment are largely viewed as separate entities,
which results in the environment being viewed as a discrete entity. In environmental
management, this view is particularly problematic, as human disturbance and interruption is
largely to blame for ecosystem deterioration. Also within systems-literature, an alternative view
suggests that interconnections exist between social and ecological settings (Duit and Valaz,
2008). Like the adaptive management approach, Duit and Valaz. (2008) focus on the
interconnections between ecological feedbacks as influences for societal development and the
dependence of humans on the environment to generate essential services. Socio-ecological
dynamics are better understood through three elements found within the literature: fit, scale, and
interplay. From a general environmental perspective, Folke (2006) uses the term “multi-stable”
state to describe the state of the environment and the pressure of human influence. Alternatively,
Bierman, Pattberg, Van Asselt, and Zelli (2009) emphasize four interrelated aspects of
governance regimes that influence the overall performance of such mechanisms: speed,
ambition, participation, and equity. However, Bierman et al. (2009) argue that depending on the
degree of fragmentation, the degree of performance could alternatively be affected.
Bierman et al. (2009) focus their study on the fragmentation of environmental governance
mechanisms, stating that this is becoming a “serious concern for observers and policymakers
alike” (14). Similarly, fragmentation can be found at various levels of government, where it is
33
specifically problematic within regulatory systems. Theoretically, regulation and legislation
represent the stage where direction and guidance in the form of frameworks for planners should
begin. However, fragmentation provides challenges for both complete understanding and
implementation measures.
34
CHAPTER 5.0: INSTITUTIONAL FRAGMENTATION
5.1 Regulatory Systems and Uncertainty
Traditionally, policy and stewardship approaches have been viewed as separate entities
that cater to specific goals. In terms of management, policy and regulation have focused on
mitigating damage that has already been done, whereas stewardship approaches have taken a
preventative approach to reduce the outcome of damage. Specifically in the environmental
sector, the interplay of both approaches have been significant as there was a clear difference
between roles of the government and the governed in terms of environmental management. The
introduction of precautionary regulation caused confusion between these entities.
Scientific uncertainty and unknown potential threats to the environment are reasons to
avoid taking initiatives to protect the environment. The IUCN (2007) defines the precautionary
principle as the response to uncertainty, while acknowledging that delaying action can create
further barriers, such as cost and capacity, in the future. Furthermore, the principle provides “a
fundamental policy basis to anticipate, avoid, and mitigate threats to the environment” (IUCN,
2007, 1). Similarly, Santillo, Johnston, and Stringer (1999) argue that, in theory, the
precautionary principle is to “act as a truly effective means of ensuring that serious and
irreversible environmental damage is avoided” (47). However, Durant et al. (2004) argue that
the precautionary principle creates much difficulty in the “building of results-based sense of
common purpose in environmental governance” (105). The controversial principle does not
distinguish varying definitions of risk perception and risk acceptability and such can differ
between “cognitive, social, and cultural reasons” (Durant et al., 2004, 105). Additionally, Durant
et al. (2004) argue that trust-building, creating strategic frameworks and exploring various
understandings is necessary to ensure that cultural sensitivities have been met.
35
The precautionary principle is recognized as a guiding paradigm for legislative
frameworks, but has lacked in providing clear guidance for management (Santillo et al., 1999).
While examples of this will be highlighted in Section 5.2, this is largely the case with legislative
documents and regulations that pertain to, or address in some fashion, invasive species
management in both provincial (Ontario) and federal Acts. Smith’s (2012) research of federal
and provincial (Ontario) legislation summarized the findings that current legislation is rooted
with principles for preventing land and ecosystem degradation; however, these regulations only
address invasive species management in minute sections and do not provide clear avenues for
implementation. Bodansky (1991) highlights the significance of preventative measures in
situations of possible environmental degradation and refers to the ‘regulators dilemma’,
challenges faced by regulators as they are presented with the ability to act to avoid
environmental degradation in circumstances of high uncertainty. Likewise, when applying the
precautionary principle in invasive species management, regulators are subjected to restricted
activities in order to avoid potential threats of invasions (IUCN, 2007). Therefore, it is evident
that the issue of implementation is complex, with unique barriers from both the positions of
policy and of regulators. Conflicting roles of responsibility and accountability between the
government and the governed (as mentioned previously) can be attributed to several elements
such as capacity issues, personnel, funding, and a lack of understanding of the functionality of
institutional hierarchies. New governance regimes offer possible solutions to aid in the transition
from previous approaches towards innovative environmental management.
36
5.2 Terminology
Currently, standardized terminology for invasive species does not exist and, as a result,
there are many terms that are used to refer to invasive species. Some examples of this include,
but are not limited to, “native nuisance species”, “pests”, “weeds”, “hazards”, and “alien”
(Smith, 2012). While legislation addressing invasive species has been enacted over the last 25
years, the scientific term of invasive alien species (IAS) was first introduced in the early 1990s
(Smith, 2012). Nearly a decade later, the federal and provincial (Ontario) government adopted
this term in their strategies towards preserving biodiversity. The use of consistent terminology
adds to the complexity of the emerging field of study, as it is evident that there is a lag between
the introduction and the usage of specific terminology for invasive species.
Inconsistent terminology, particularly for invasive species, can be problematic for many
reasons. Improper use of words creates confusion for theoretical issues in instances where
inconsistent terminology may have been used to describe dissimilar phenomena (such as
invasive, imported, and naturalized) (Colautti and MacIsaac, 2004). The degrees of impact that
invasive species have had in recent years spans over various sectors, but are best understood
from an economic aspect. As recognition for the seriousness of the issue has increased, strategies
and Acts have emerged to address the negative effects, but do not provide consistent and defined
terminology (Smith, 2012). This has been, in part, attributed to the lack of consensus and
understanding of the vocabulary that exists to describe invasions. Colautti and MacIssaac (2004)
use the word “nuisance” to re-iterate that this word generally implies the adverse affects on
humans, whether it is directly or indirectly. Furthermore, the use of such words, like “nuisance”,
can be subjective and better understood from a human perspective rather than emphasizing
ecological characteristics (Colautti and MacIssac, 2004).
37
The drive to have defined and consistent terminology for invasive species management
has become increasingly important in recent years as recognition for invasive species and their
negative impacts have become better understood. Concurrently, emerging policy and legislative
documents, both at the federal and provincial (Ontario) level, have been created as the initial
phases of a management approach (Smith, 2012). Some examples of this include, but are not
limited to, the Convention on Biological Diversity, Global Strategy on Invasive Alien Species,
An Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada, and the Ontario Invasive Species Strategic Plan
(Smith, 2012). Additionally, in conjunction with the recognition of the seriousness of the issue,
policy-makers involved in the creation of such documents have also realized that invasive alien
species are a unique species and require a unique approach (Smith, 2012).
The creation of standardized terminology would aid in other issue areas that are not as
well recognized within the literature. For example, standardized terminology would provide
clarity in the management processes in terms of defining scope. Similarly, ambiguity within and
throughout management processes would decrease and legal certainty would increase (Smith,
2012). Historically, there have been narrow approaches to identifying and defining the extent of
“introduction” for invasive alien species, which is problematic because this phase is largely
responsible for sparking legal measures in terms of management (CBD, 2001).
Consistent terminology would reduce confusion between researchers and improve
management approaches by encouraging a more focused and directed approach (Colautti and
MacIssac, 2004). With existing legislation that addresses aspects of invasive species, such as
standards for quarantine and transport controls, uniform terminology would ensure that such
measures function at the highest of their ability (Shine, Williams, and Gundig, 2000). This would
further provide individuals within the field, and those being reported to (such as managers,
38
conservationists, etc.), with a more holistic understanding of factors involved in the protection of
biodiversity.
Complete restructuring of invasion terminology presents a very complex task and has not
been attempted thus far within the literature, although many scholars recognize the need for at
least creating standardized terminology when referring to invasive alien species. Shine et al.
(2000) argue that the lack of consensus for standardized terminology and varying institutional
practices within the field of invasive species management impedes communication and progress
in management approaches. With the minimum steps of creating standardized terminology,
legislative action on all levels and scales would allow for parallel approaches (Smith, 2012).
Although this represents a major undertaking, the alignment would support action at the
international, national, and provincial levels, which would signify a priority status among the
legislative agendas.
Inconsistency with regard to invasive alien species does not only exist in the use of
associated terminology, but is also present in the associated Acts in the Canadian context.
Currently, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) in Ontario does not address invasive alien
species management; however, there are legislative documents that do refer to invasive alien
species. Smith (2012) conducted a comprehensive review of the legislative documents that exist
in federally and provincially (Ontario) exploring the depth and extent to which the documents
address invasive alien species. The tables below are summaries of the Acts and associated
coverage.
Table 3: Federal Acts which intentionally focus on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) (Smith, 2012).
Federal Acts Nature of IAS Coverage
Canada Shipping Act Requires ballast water management of all ships entering Canada to minimize the uptake of IAS
39
Federal Sustainable Development Act
Emphasizes prevention, detection, and rapid response under Federal Strategy
Fish Inspection Act Prohibits the import of live Chinese Mitten Crab
Fisheries Act Prohibits the possession of live IAS fish without a license, the use of IAS fish as bait, and the interprovincial movement of diseased Salmonids; authorizes the use of fish toxicants to control fish pests; enables regulations to prevent, manage, and control aquatic IAS
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act Authorizes the trade of Common Carp (considered IAS)
Great Lakes Fisheries Convention Act
Emphasizes the control and eradication of Sea Lamprey (considered IAS)
Health of Animals Act Regulates the import of IAS finfish and crustaceans; lists IAS wildlife pathogens as reportable diseases; prohibits the import of several IAS vertebrates
Plant Protection Act Seeks to prevent the import, export, and spread of IAS plant pests and to provide for their control and eradication
Seeds Act Regulates noxious weed seed content in seeds imported and sold in Canada; regulates the release of genetically modified and imported seeds into the environment
Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA)
Regulates the import of several IAS vertebrates
Table 4: Ontario Acts which intentionally focus on Invasive Alien Species (IAS) (Smith, 2012).
Ontario Act Nature of IAS Focus
Environmental Assessment Act Covers control of IAS and introduction of exotic or non-native species under two Class EAs
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Prohibits trade in IAS fish and trade and stocking of fish sick with IAS wildlife pathogens
Lake Simcoe Protection Act Emphasizes monitoring, education/outreach, and response plans to address IAS in the watershed
40
Pesticides Act Allows use of pesticides to control IAS
Plant Diseases Act Authorizes control and eradication of IAS plant pathogens
Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act
Prohibits the introduction into and possession of living things or objects that may carry IAS within provincial parks; prohibits introducing an animal or plant into a conservation reserve
Weed Control Act Prohibits IAS weeds on land used for horticulture and agriculture
There are common types of barriers and issues with the federal and provincial Acts that limit the
effectiveness of plans upon implementation. The issue of capacity in invasive species
management is a barrier that is highlighted by several scholars, as legislative documents require
many factors for success, such as funding, personnel, and materials. While the number of Acts
that discuss invasive species could be viewed as being well-covered, the lack of standardized
terminology within the Acts indicates that invasive species are not a central issue within
legislation (Smith, 2012). In addition, there are gaps in regulatory frameworks that suffer from
addressing both jurisdictional coverage and species coverage. Within the regulatory frameworks,
there is also a lack of coordinated and detailed approaches for management. Low-level
coordination and a lack of strategic approach burden rapid response initiatives that are outlined
in many regulatory documents where prevention is emphasized as being the most crucial phase
in invasive species management.
41
CHAPTER 6.0: GAPS IN CURRENT LITERATURE
As a relatively new scientific field, there is evidence that much research has been
completed on the types of systematic management mechanisms for treatment of invasives in
addition to understanding the various phases. However, gaps are presented in terms of clear
guidelines for implementation. Regulatory frameworks, such as existing relevant legislation, do
not provide explicit standards for action but do provide a means for prevention by restricting
activities that may increase harm or threat of spread. Additionally, there has yet to be research
conducted on the process for creating standardized terminology, both in regulatory and
legislative documents as well as in strategic approaches. While the task of creating standardized
terminology would be a very complex process, the creation of such unique terminology would
allow for individuals from all networks and sectors to converge information and knowledge in a
standardized form.
Arguably the most critical aspect that is largely unexplored within the literature is
research conducted on collaboration and coordination mechanisms for invasive species
management. These elements can be understood in two arenas: 1) within federal and provincial
(Ontario) legislation and 2) within the scientific field of invasive species management. Firstly,
Smith (2012) found that guidelines for a coordinated approach for IAS was not clear in the
reviewed Acts. While there is some overlap in coverage for Acts referring to invasive aquatic
species, the overlap does not expand to remaining legislation. Collaboration and coordination on
invasive species management is important because spread of invasives is not bound by
geographic or jurisdictional boundaries. Secondly, there is limited research conducted on
exploring relationships and networks at various levels of governments as well as non-
governmental organizations for invasive species management. As economic pressures continue
42
to create barriers for budgets and ministries lose ability to maintain historical action on the
ground, it will become necessary to use, and rely on, lower and upper tier governments and
NGOs for implementation of management plans.
In order to further explore this gap, linkages are presented in Figure 4 through the
depiction of a Venn diagram. This representation highlights the relationships between
government, quasi-government, and non-government that have varying degrees of involvement
in invasive species management. The Venn diagram was created using the resources during the
completion of this literature review. Visually, the diagram shows the unbalanced nature of the
organizations that work/address invasive species, where non-government appears to have much
more involvement. As discussed previously, this may be the result of capacity issues and lack of
Figure 4: Venn Diagram Representation of the Structure of Organizations that are Involved/Address Invasive Species in Ontario.
43
resources for the government side. However, this reliance on non-government organizations for
invasive species management has not been widely explored within the literature.
Using the same structure as above, Figure 5 is a comparison of roles in invasive species
management thus far. While the diagram depicts a broad-level representation, the purpose is to
show possible linkages between experts responsible for policy-making and those responsible for
implementation. Conservation Authorities (CAs) are among the only experts whose role is
unique, with some regulatory powers in addition to being involved in implementation for
invasive species management (ISM) at current time. Furthermore, Conservation Ontario and the
CAs are the main linkage between policy-makers and implementation, which illustrates the
possible potential and importance of their role moving forward with ISM in Ontario.
Figure 5: Broad-level representation comparing experts involved in policy-making and implementation of ISM.
44
Additionally, the combination of the literature reviewed and the summary of various key
informant interviews has led to the creation of the comparison figure below. While there is much
evidence of systematic approaches within the literature, the concept of standalone/species-
specific plans is not as prevalent. For this diagram, the focus is largely based on the context of
Ontario, particularly in terms of the legislation/regulations component. Similar to the Venn
diagram, Figure 6 shows the comparison of the dominant approaches for ISM. In addition, this
graphic highlights the issue of fragmentation, the difficulty of defining and measuring success as
well as determining the extent of implementation measures needed.
These gaps emphasize that the concept of collaboration and coordination are crucial to
successful management of invasive species. However, exploration of such mechanisms is not
largely explored. Particularly, coordination between upper tier and lower tier government, as
Figure 6: Comparison Graphic of Invasive Species Approaches
45
well as consideration for those organizations that are non-government, is important. As plans and
strategies are built primarily with government focus, both the literature and key informants state
that greater stress needs to be placed on incorporating other involved agencies as they are largely
responsible for carrying out implementation. While government ministries may have been
responsible for such action at one time, it is evident that this trend is transitioning to offloading
responsibilities to lower-tier government, quasi-government, and non-government organizations.
This review highlighted several flaws in the current approaches and structure of invasive
species management in Ontario. Additionally, the literature review provided validation for the
exploration of concepts that have not yet been largely explored in Ontario – such as the working
relationship and networks of collaboration between various levels of government and NGOs. The
diagrams shown within this section are the product of the literature review analysis and comprise
the foundation for this research.
46
CHAPTER 7.0: METHODOLOGY
7.1 Justification for Research
In May of 2012, the Ministry of Natural Resources published the Ontario Invasive
Species Strategic Plan (OISSP). While the plan is extensive and sets out aggressive goals, it does
not specify accountability or responsibility for the implementation stages of ISM. Over the past
several decades, a shift has occurred within the structure and involvement of MNR from one that
traditionally carried out implementation of natural resources management to a body that was
largely focused on process creation and delegation. Much of this change has been the result of
increasingly constrained budgets; this aspect of implementation is a gray area that is not widely
explored in the OISSP.
Using the OISSP as justification for this research, the research goal is to further explore
the current state of invasive species management in Ontario. While the extent of involvement at
the municipal level is not addressed within the OISSP, it is hypothesized that lower-tier and
municipal governments have the capacity to manage invasives within their jurisdictional
boundaries. Unlike the current state of the MNR, municipal governments and local CAs have
location-specific expertise regarding environmental issues within their geographic jurisdictions.
In addition, municipalities and CAs are mandated to implement policy; however, they are not
responsible for the task of developing policy for the province. On the contrary, MNR excels at
producing processes and documents that can be beneficial in terms of guidance for various levels
of government that may be better implemented at a smaller scale. While there is a division
between authority and responsibility for policy development, this separation can be beneficial to
providing future guidance for implementation.
47
7.2 Data Collection Method
Data collection for this research occurred in three stages: the literature review, surveys,
and expert interviews. Figure 7 is a graphic display of the methodology used that will be further
discussed below.
7.2.1 Literature review
In order to understand the current state of invasive species management, a literature
review was completed that provided an evaluation of current and proposed management
strategies and associated legislation regarding ISM in Ontario. The literature review included an
analysis of scholarly articles and invasive species strategies produced by both government and
non-government organizations.
Figure 7: Graphic display of methodology used in this study.
48
7.2.2 Preliminary Survey
For the purpose of this evaluative study, the OISSP was used as the key IS framework in
order to fulfill the comparative analysis component. The OISSP was released in May of 2012 and
represented initial formal steps taken by a government agency towards invasive species
management in Ontario, Canada. While the OISSP was created at the provincial level, the
intention is that it would act as a guideline for lower, subsequent levels of government and quasi-
governmental organizations. The purpose of the preliminary survey was to further investigate
the involved agencies/organizations/personnel that are involved in both the process and
substance aspects of ISM. In order to gain perspective from the quasi-government and non-
government organizations, the initial stages of data collection included contacting experts from
municipalities and conservation authorities within the province of Ontario to determine which
geographic areas/regions were involved in ISM. Because the purpose of this research is to
investigate linkages between provincial and municipal levels, this basic information was required
in order to understand the degree of involvement spanning across the province of Ontario.
Appendix B and Appendix C are examples of the broad-scan survey and research summary that
were sent to 444 municipalities and 36 conservation authorities. Initial contact was completed
through mass-email surveys that resulted in a 71% response rate. The collected responses
provided a baseline for involvement across Ontario that was organized systematically into a
database that included four main categories: municipality name, contact information, invasive
species plan names/types (if applicable) and reference to further relevant contacts. The remainder
of non-response municipalities and conservation authorities prompted further online research that
demonstrated an absence of involvement for ISM.
49
7.2.3 Interviews
Due to the qualitative nature of the initial broad-scan survey, a purposive sampling
approach was used in order to target geographic regions that were actively engaging in invasive
species management tasks and those with expertise in the equivalent disciplines. A subset of
participants who consisted of experts from both the municipal and conservation authority arenas
were invited to provide expertise in two main areas of interest: structure and implementation. In
total, 15 key informants included individuals from municipalities (upper- and lower-tier levels of
government), associated government organizations and conservation authorities. Additionally,
two experts were from out of the province, in Alberta, Canada and Florida, USA. Two distinct
groups of experts comprised the interview population: municipal and enforcement. The
municipal category was made up of municipality/township/counties, while the enforcement
included conservation authority experts and weed inspector/bylaw enforcement officers.
Interviews followed a semi-structured nature, where baseline questions were provided
prior to the interview session. The use of examples and personal experiences were encouraged.
Questions were distributed to participants prior to the interview process, including the diagram
from Figure 4, and a description of the purpose and goals of the research. Copies of the interview
questionnaires, for both municipal and enforcement categories respectively, can be found in
Appendix D. While contact with international experts was attempted, such inclusion proved to be
outside the scope of this study. Despite the lack of international case studies, the expertise
provided by mainly local key informants (within the province of Ontario) resulted in a more
focused study and allowed for straightforward comparisons with the OISSP.
Interview questions were categorized systematically into two sections: process (how it
will be done and by whom) and substance (implementation and what will be done). While these
50
elements are interconnected in ISM, it was deemed important to explore both elements separately
with questions regarding successes and barriers to bridge the concepts. As identified through the
literature review and preliminary information-based interviews, there are several examples of
formal written documents addressing ISM that result in lack of implementation for various
reasons. By addressing process and structure separately, the intent was that a holistic
understanding of ISM from various experts could be further investigated. Interview responses
were recorded to aid in the flow of the interview process, where they were transcribed and coded
at a later time for analysis. The interview transcripts were analyzed and coded using the style of a
grounded theory approach – whereby codes are extracted from similar themes and answers
during the analysis component of transcripts. Five main category headings were generated upon
analysis of the transcribed data in which all the data was accounted for from the 15 completed
interviews. These findings will be discussed in the following section.
51
CHAPTER 8.0: FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
Reporting and analysis of the findings from this research are separated into sections as
they relate to the stages of data collection. As previously discussed, there were three main
methods for data collection: literature review, preliminary survey and expert interview sessions.
While the literature review preceded the analysis of research, this section will focus largely on
the results formulated from the survey and interview stages. For the purpose of presenting the
findings and discussion, the process and substance aspects will be discussed in unison unless
otherwise stated. Additionally, while the purpose of this research is to explore the relationship of
process and substance, it is important to note that the preliminary survey stage is more focused
on the process while the substance aspect is emphasized through the results of interview
sessions.
8.1 Literature Review
The completion of a preliminary literature review revealed two important components,
tactic and action, which alternatively could be referred to as the ‘process’ and ‘substance’ in
invasive species management. These interconnected elements refer to the documentation as it
relates to planning implementation for invasive species management versus the physical
implementation, respectively.
8.2 Preliminary Survey Results
As the first government-initiated strategy for invasive species management, the OISSP
failed to mention whether or not any municipalities or CAs in Ontario have worked towards
creating strategies within their jurisdictions. During the design phase of the framework for this
52
research, several experts at the MNR, Ontario Invasive Plant Council (OIPC), and Invasive
Species Centre (ISC) were contacted to retrieve this information, however it quickly became
evident that such information had not been compiled. Collection of this information was a
necessary step in order to gauge the involvement of Ontario’s municipalities and Conservation
Authorities in invasive species management, especially considering all geographic jurisdictions
have invasions at varying scales.
The preliminary survey was addressed to all municipalities (444) and all Conservation
Authorities (CA) (36) in order to explore the functioning ISM frameworks that are currently
active in Ontario. While Conservation Authorities are quasi-government, the inclusion of the
CAs was necessary because in some cases, such as the enforcement of the Noxious Weeds Act,
Conservation Authorities play a major role in management. The initial survey responses were
followed by a second attempt to enlist those that did not first reply. This occurred approximately
2.5 weeks after the initial contact was attempted. Final response rate reached approximately 71%
and consisted of both responses by various contacts as well as Internet research (for involvement
of Conservation Authorities). Further Internet research to determine whether or not
municipalities had such frameworks was not attempted due to the tedious nature of the task and
because such a specific environmental issue has not been targeted at large. The information
collected was categorized into a database that displayed headings such as: municipality name,
contact information, invasive species plan names/types (if applicable) and reference to further
relevant contacts. Additionally, a designated column tracked requests for research findings upon
the completion of this research.
Because the OISSP is the first official movement on invasive species management by the
Ontario provincial government, the survey targeted jurisdictions in Ontario and focused on two
53
main questions: 1) ‘Does your municipality/CA have an invasive species strategy?’ and 2) ‘What
involvement does your jurisdiction have with ISM?’. Of the municipalities that responded, only
two municipalities reported to having an invasive species strategy, while one municipality
reported being in the process of creating a plan. Additionally, two conservation authorities
reported having an invasive species strategy, while one conservation authority reported that the
creation of an invasive species strategy was in progress. The results represent a very small
proportion that is actively engaging in ISM in Ontario. Such results prompt further questioning
regarding the reasons for these results. Could this be the result of lack of capacity, funding, or
priority? Regardless, the results from the preliminary survey indicated that some jurisdictions
found justification to allocate time and resources to creating a management plan for invasives.
While not investigated in the preliminary survey, the results provided the basis for further
research into determining the motivation behind such a task.
Questions raised from preliminary survey results provided justification for future follow-
up with municipalities and Conservation Authorities that had already completed or were
contemplating the creation of ISM plans. As a result of initial contact through the preliminary
surveys, experts whom were interested in participating in interviews for this research were
identified
8.3 Interviews
Participants for the interviews were targeted through a purposive sampling technique.
The broad-scan survey identified municipalities and CAs actively engaging in ISM, from which
experts were invited to participate in interviews. Upon confirmation of interest by a set of
experts, a total of 15 expert informants comprised the sample size for the interview process.
54
Experts for the interviews comprised two distinct groups: regulators and non-regulators.
Regulators consist mainly of experts involved in enforcement of ISM and rely on legislation and
regulation in order to preform daily tasks. Examples of regulators for this research include:
bylaw enforcement officers, weed inspectors, and Conservation Authority personnel3. Non-
regulators represent experts who are involved in ISM that use their expertise to advise without
access to tools for legal enforcement. Examples of non-regulators for this research include
municipal officials. While separate interview questions were prepared, all were specially
designed to target the same areas for analysis. Respectively, all interview responses generated
can be categorized into five general categories:
• Systematic vs. standalone strategies; • Role/involvement in the management process; • Availability of the management plan; • Approach for implementation; and • Associated barriers to implementation.
8.3.1 Systematic vs. Standalone Strategies
There are two main approaches to invasive species management that currently exist
within the literature: biodiversity/systematic approach and standalone species-specific approach.
The systematic approach encompasses an overarching invasive species plan that incorporates a
more general plan for all invasive species, one that is comprehensive and resource-intensive in
both the creation and implementation phases. On the contrary, a standalone species-specific plan
attempts to manage invasions at a much more specified and localized scale and is focused on a
single species. Although standalone plans target a single species, there are cases where
3 For the purpose of this research, Conservation Authority experts have been included in the regulator category. Experts of this agency host a unique role in which regulatory powers are only applicable in some instances.
55
municipalities/organizations have various standalone plans for different invasive species that
could be invading in unison across a geographic area.
Informants within the ‘regulators’ category reported divided preferences towards
approach. Some regulators did not specify a preference towards either; however, responses
demonstrated that involvement with both types of approaches had occurred. Other experts in the
‘regulators’ category specified a preference towards the systematic approach because it provided
a structure and overall understanding of ecosystems as a whole. While acknowledging the
difficulty to determine which approach is better, experts in support of a systematic approach
believed that an overarching plan has the potential to be more successful because it represents a
proactive initiative based on a wealth of current knowledge that will produce benefits for the
future. Additionally, informants of this category also reported to having large field staff,
additional resources, well-connected networks, and time to invest in the creation and
management of the plan.
On the contrary, ‘non-regulator’ informants reported a preference and justification
between the different types of approach. The results showed an increased preference towards
standalone species-specific plans. Reason for this preference was largely attributed to
constrained resources that simply do not allow for the designation of time and expertise that is
required to create an overarching systematic IS plan. For example, one informant provided this
justification for preference of a standalone plan: “We do not believe we can do it alone and
resources will not allow us to control all the invasive species out there.” In addition, informants
reported that, traditionally, approaches towards invasive species management has been reactive
and has only recently begun a trend towards proactive planning. As management for invasives
could still be considered in its infancy, informants who reported to preferring standalone plans
56
believe that it is a better use of resources to focus on a single species and that it was not yet
deemed necessary or considered a requirement to have a plan that tailored to a wider, but more
general, approach to invasive species management. Other reasons provided in support of
standalone plans consist of: lack of resources, lack of guidance from provincial government, and
lack of funding.
The informants were asked why and how invasive species management began within
their jurisdictions. For example, Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) was reported in all interviews as a
well-known invasive species that has had a profound effect on Ontario’s tree health. As a result,
many municipalities and Conservation Authorities have recently adopted an EAB plan as a
management approach for such infestations. One expert claims that the “EAB plan was forced
due to insect infestation”; this emphasizes the reactive attitude towards management of invasives
that has existed thus far.
Views of experts in this aspect of invasive species management are similar in many ways.
Those that are in support of a systematic and overarching plan have more designated resources,
well-connected networks, and accessible funding while those that are in support of standalone
plans are lacking in this capacity. Important to note is the movement towards a proactive
approach that is evident within the experts that were interviewed. Although there is not a
consensus on the approach used towards invasive species, the topic has created communication,
innovation, and networking within jurisdictions about future steps of ISM.
8.3.2 Role/Involvement in ISM
The purpose of investigating the role and involvement of experts in the management of
invasives was to determine the scale and emphasis that an organization had placed on ISM. For
example, a jurisdiction that had many experts and personnel designated towards management is
57
likely to have placed a higher priority on ISM and invested more time as well as resources. Also
incorporated within this section was the identification of the personnel and/or external parties
involved in creating the management plan and connecting the role of those key players.
Non-regulators were more specific in regards to the area of expertise that of staff
resources. For example, non-regulators identified either parks staff or forestry managers as being
responsible for leading the creation of management plans. Other roles of experts included:
environment and parks staff, biologist/environmental planners, consultants, private landowners,
and government organizations/ministries. All experts identified the similar personnel involved in
both the creation and implementation of ISM, which included either some or all of the same
individuals.
Regulators, excluding CAs, have a much more defined role in environmental
management as they rely on provincial or local guidelines for enforcement. Of the regulators
interviewed, all indicated that a small amount of their time is designated towards invasive
species. For CAs, roles were typically defined as an “advising body” for municipalities except in
the case where the Conservation Authorities Act applied, during which their role shifted as a
regulatory body. In three interviews, regulators commented on the lack of priority from
municipalities towards invasive species management, to which they attribute their lesser
involvement in ISM at the present time. In one specific example, an informant discussed how
they had prepared a report outlining what could be done within the municipality, including
funding opportunities through the OIPC, but this was never pursued. Reflective of the attitudes
of the regulators interviewed, all expressed an interest in moving forward in ISM and working
58
with private landowners rather than issuing Weed Control Order’s against private landowners4.
All regulators spoke in depth about daily responsibilities, stating that a majority of inquiries are
from landowners reporting unfamiliar plants or insects in which a preliminary scope is
completed to determine whether or not the species is invasive. Despite the lack of drive from
municipalities, as discussed by informants, all expressed a willingness to go over and above
“defined” roles for those in need or if the outcome would benefit the municipality.
Regulators are faced with unique barriers in their involvement with ISM because their
roles are mandated either through the local municipality or through the provincial government.
For invasive species specifically, the Noxious Weeds Act is only enforceable for agricultural
land, which makes it very difficult to convince property owners of all other land-use designations
to treat invasives when they are not mandated to conform to provincial policy. Interview findings
show that there is a growing interest in the treatment of invasives. Regulators identified
legislative changes, such as outlining processes for personal property, as a tool that would enable
IS action beyond its current capacity.
There was a clear difference between the involvement in expertise of personnel between
the regulators and non-regulators. Of the non-regulators, there was no reference to the
involvement of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the Ontario Invasive Plant Council
(OIPC), or the Invasive Species Awareness Program (ISAP) in current ISM action. However, the
regulators acknowledged the former agencies as providing guidance in the approach for
implementation. While support by such agencies varied in different ways (such as funding,
guidance on management plans, etc.) for Conservation Authorities, weed inspectors, and bylaw
enforcement officers, the results warrant answers for the following questions: 4 A Weed Control Order is an order that is placed by a Weeds Inspector for a private landowner to destroy weeds within 7 days (excluding weekends). Failure to obey will result in the municipality treating the site, for which the landowner is financially responsible.
59
• From a provincial perspective, who is responsible for the management of invasive species?
• Why is there a lack of coordinated approach between established professions (e.g. municipal planning vs. enforcement avenues)?
• How does successful management occur without equivalent support from provincial government/agencies for all involved stakeholders?
Traditionally, Conservation Authorities have been more geared towards involvement in the
protection of environmental resources; however, these interviews show that municipalities are
becoming increasingly involved in working towards biodiversity conservation. The key
difference found within the interviews is that Conservation Authorities appear to have more
guidance and better networks for approaching management of invasive species, while municipal
experts engage in a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Non-regulators and regulators made minimal
reference about the possibility of working collaboratively towards a coordinated approach, but
this could be the result in the difference in regulatory power and of resources. Additionally, as
invasive species management is still in its infancy, these results could be a lack of clear
determination of roles and responsibilities. Nevertheless, findings show that institutional
fragmentation exists even at a localized level.
8.3.3 Availability of the Management Plan
Management plans, strategic plans, or guidelines are examples of documents that are
created to guide implementation and provide future reference. The purpose of investigating the
availability of such plans was to determine availability/applicability of plans to: the public, as an
internal resource, and to neighbouring jurisdictions. Specifically in municipal planning, the
planning process is to serve the public interest, which includes ensuring transparency by making
information available. While invasive species management is problematic due to the absence of
legislation and regulations for private property, plans created and followed by municipalities can
60
be a useful resource for private landowners that may have invasive species encroaching on their
personal property.
Non-regulators reported that all documents created and implemented within their
jurisdictions are internal resources; however, there are versions of guidelines that are available to
the public5. For example, safe-work procedures for the removal of giant hogweed are geared
towards management on municipally-managed properties. Such guidance is provided to private
landowners if they seek advice or guidance on proper strategy for the removal of giant hogweed,
but is only available when a private landowner actively seeks the information. On the contrary,
some non-regulators reported the distribution of community information packages that are
designed to clearly illustrate different techniques and plans made available to the public. In
addition, the information is translated to the public and other involved agencies through frequent
events to engage the public; however, engagement was mainly completed by the efforts of CA
officials. A non-regulator commented on the involvement of CAs with the public, stating that “I
am a firm believer in not doubling up on expertise or programs – the CAs are very involved in
recruiting volunteers and engaging the public”. Findings indicate that non-regulators support
making the public aware, but place engaging the community in environmental events at the
responsibility of Conservation Authorities. The irony with this finding is that the foundations of
municipal planning specify inclusion of the public, whereas the mandates of Conservation
Authorities and other enforcement groups are more focused on the environment. These results
illustrate the conflicting duties and responsibilities between the involved stakeholders.
Regulatory informants have distinct roles that are applied in invasive species
management. Bylaw enforcement officers are locally appointed and are responsible for
5 For the purpose of this category, the use of the phrase ‘internal’ refers to the sharing of a document within a specific agency (e.g. within a specific municipal government).
61
“enforcement of non-criminal bylaws, rules, laws, codes, or regulations enacted by local
governments” (All Ontario, 2013, 1). Weed inspectors are provincially appointed and are
responsible for inspecting both public and private lands for noxious and restricted weeds,
responding to complaints, and issuing weed notices in accordance with the Weed Control Act.
Additionally, Conservation Authorities “regulate development and other activities through a
permitting process for purposes of natural hazard management and prevention” with guidance
from the MNR (MNR, 2013, 1). Availability of the guidelines that define the roles of the
informants within this category is widely available online. This includes, but is not limited to,
local bylaws (for individual municipalities), the Noxious Weeds Act, the Weed Control Act and
the Conservation Authorities Act. While such legislation and regulation is widely available
online, this research did not determine if the general public: a) is aware that these documents
exist, b) understands the content of these documents, and c) knows where to access the
information. Due to the limitations of enforcement for the Noxious Weeds Act and its tailoring
towards agricultural land, it would be fair to assume that farmers are aware that such legislation
exists. However, it is not clear whether or not farmers would actively seek guidance from an
enforcement personnel should they discover invasive species encroaching on their operation.
Several non-regulators reported that the documents used within their jurisdictions could
be offered as an external document but at the present time management plans are only provided
in-house. This finding was expected as previous responses showed that ‘lack of resources’ and
‘lack of funding’ were among the primary justifications for standalone species-specific plans.
For municipalities that are engaging in treating a single or a few types of invasive species at a
small site-specific scale, it may not be deemed necessary to inform the public of management
62
plans. However, providing results of the outcomes of such projects could be beneficial to inform
the public of efforts being put forth towards biodiversity conservation.
8.3.4 Implementation Approach
As mentioned previously, there is a gap between the process and substance of ISM plans.
The process for the implementation approach was initially geared towards individuals within the
regulators category, as their responsibilities are more focused on implementing management.
However, some non-regulators discussed their efforts towards implementation of management
plans for invasive species within their jurisdictions. The purpose of investigating the process for
implementation was to better understand the approach taken for ISM, whether or not it mirrors
the process covered in the literature or if organizations are creating and practicing innovative
processes. While responses were much more limited for non-regulators, reference was made to
individual projects that were conducted at the municipal level. Regulators were more specific in
regards to their approach, providing a step-by-step process of their work in the field.
Non-regulators named consultants as the key individual to deal with project-specific
invasions. For example, in several cases non-regulators recounted instances where a landowner
initiated contact about an unfamiliar insect or plant found on their premises, during which a
preliminary consultation would occur. If needed, a consultant would treat the site or the
landowner would be guided towards a third party company that could aid in treatment and/or
removal. Non-regulators reported to contracting consultants in order to aid in providing
environmental services where municipal resources may fall short. For private land, non-
regulators clarified that financial responsibility for treatment is that of the local landowner.
However, some municipalities have begun to conduct annual monitoring of forest health in order
to build a database that will identify trends over time. While the municipality sets the protocols
63
and parameters, a consultant conducts a series of tests on municipally-owned land during the
year to monitor certain characteristics. The identified areas could also include sites where
remedial work has been done against invasives in order to monitor the regeneration of
ecosystems where invasives were removed. Additionally, another example of innovation in ISM
is where private landowners rallied together to address the issues of Giant Hogweed in a
community. In this instance, the municipality met with private landowners to create a plan that
eventually was put into action. While these examples did not provide a step-by-step outline of
the process, they represent examples where the municipality followed identification, treatment,
and monitoring of invasives. Furthermore, action by both the municipalities and private
landowners is driven by a proactive approach, which differs from the majority of documented
cases that are covered in the literature.
Some regulators reported a more structured and systematic approach for implementation.
Using approaches such as ecological land classification and mandated department
responsibilities within their jurisdiction resulted in an organized approach in order to classify and
determine scale of the issue. CAs were among the only experts to report involvement with the
Invasive Species Awareness Program (ISAP) in which the information collected from newly
invaded sites is shared with ISAP. Further, ISAP is involved in the follow-up and monitoring of
many reported sites. However, such involvement by ISAP includes offering advice and guidance
to organizations that may help treat cases. For properties owned by CAs, it was reported that
majority of the time treatment and/or removal is completed by field staff. For larger projects, the
use of consultants may be used. All collected information and projects are internal and shared
within associated departments.
64
Regulators provided more detailed responses. The process referred to by various
informants consisted of: 1) detection, 2) process for assessment, and 3) reporting and monitoring.
Generally, regulators operate from complaints or inquiries posed by local residents about
abnormal sightings of insects or plants. Most regulators indicated that the most frequent
detection of invasions was initiated by private landowners within their jurisdictions. Reports
from the general public take two forms: 1) on a complaint-basis from neighbouring property and
2) general inquiries about unfamiliar species. Regardless of the approach, situations are treated
very similarly, with a consultation either over the phone or by a site visit. For private property,
regulators identified a process for assessment that includes identification and guidance of
possible routes for treatment or, if need be, the issuing of a weed control order under the Noxious
Weeds Act. Enforcement officers and weed inspectors reported being much more involved on site
than any other expert. Descriptions of site visits and tours to identify the problem were deemed
necessary in order to identify the scale of the issue prior to moving forward. Additionally, it was
reported that frequently photographs and follow-up research were required in order to identify
the problem in the field. From the assessment, regulators were able to provide information to
private landowners and guidance on subsequent steps for removal if the property owner chooses
to act. For properties that are mandated by the Noxious Weeds Act, a weed control order can be
issued. Some regulators reported on keeping records of all assessments conducted, but reported
that these were essentially for personal reference as municipalities were generally “just happy
that it’s looked after – they aren’t necessarily looking for details”. Involvement by Weeds
Inspectors and Bylaw Enforcement officers particularly is relatively minor compared to other
responsibilities, but the reported lack of concern by local municipalities regarding ISM cases is
problematic. A fundamental aspect of dealing with cross-jurisdictional issues such as invasive
65
species requires communication between involved personnel and across networks.
Communication is the key to prevention of further invasions and allows for better understanding
and guidance for future management.
8.3.5 Barriers to Associated Implementation
Implementation of invasive species strategies and plans is highlighted both within the
literature and the interviews conducted as the most challenging aspect of ISM at current time. In
many cases, plans and strategies are created on paper, but action on project sites is not executed.
As discussed earlier, there is a disconnect between process and substance. During the expert
interviews, one of the most crucial concepts covered was the identification of barriers in current
approaches for invasive species management. It is important to note that the interview process
included the identification of barriers with short descriptions, but did not include further probing
about possible solutions or changes that could be made by any particular organization. The
following is a chart that indicates barriers to implementation in ISM with brief descriptions as
identified by experts in the interview process.
Table 5: Barriers to implementation of ISM (as identified by experts in the field).
Barrier Brief description 1 Limitations of current
legislation/regulation for enforcement
Current legislation related to invasive species, such as the Noxious Weeds Act, mandates agricultural land but does not provide grounds for implementation for non-agricultural property. See Section 5.2 for more detail on limitations related to ISM.
2 Translocation of species As a cross-boundary issue, invasive species can spread randomly across jurisdictions through a variety of pathways. Translocation can be accidental or deliberate.
3 Lack of related policy Currently invasive species policy does not exist in Ontario, which contributes to difficulty of enforcement.
4 Lack of support from provincial ministries
The role of provincial ministries has changed over the past several decades and historic actions led by this level are no longer possible due to reduced budgets and personnel.
66
All experts commented on change of support and several discussed the lack of support – both financially and technical – from the provincial ministries involved in ISM.
5 Lack of coordination Coordination between all involved stakeholders and agencies is needed to approach a cross-jurisdictional issue such as IS. Communication is key in the success of coordination. This can include the sharing of information and management strategies as well as approaches across geographic boundaries.
6 Lack of shared priorities Lack of shared priorities, as identified by experts, is referring to the relationship with municipal officials, both lower and upper tier government. For example, the promotion of native plant species by CAs and naturalist groups encourages protection of biodiversity; however, in several cases municipalities will plant non-native species.
7 Lack of species prioritization
Species prioritization refers to prioritizing management by species type. For example, experts indicated that many strategies or plans focus on a species that is already well established rather than focusing on prevention of IS and management/treatment of newly introduced IS.
8 Lack of formal training Formal training refers to training required for assessing and managing IS under the Noxious Weeds Act and with various species of IS.
9 Lack of financial support
Financial support is imperative to hire experts to conduct ISM in a region. Additionally, funding is needed to plan strategies, execute removal/treatment, and future monitoring.
10 Lack of capacity Adequate resources are needed in order to treat all identified invasions and for monitoring of ecologically sensitive areas. Without clear guidelines, organizations and agencies struggle to contain and treat new invasions, as capacity does not allow for adequate distribution of resources.
11 Lack of licensed pesticide applicators
Becoming a licensed pesticide applicator (LPA) is expensive and time consuming. LPA’s are expert personnel who can administer pesticides that are needed to eradicate some invasive species.
12 Lack of knowledge and understanding
With many types of invasive species, knowledge and understanding of identification, management, and monitoring processes is not well understood overall. Many experts are forced to rely on internet sources to assist with identification in the field, which makes developing a plan for the management process for individual sites more time-consuming.
67
From the identified barriers, there are three barriers that were indicated in the OISSP. These are:
1) coordination, 2) translocation of species, and 3) support from provincial ministries. The
OISSP highlighted coordination as a key focus for future invasive species management. Within
the document, stakeholders and involved agencies were indicated but clear pathways for
communication and the process for creating strong networks were not identified. In coordination
with the MNR are organizations such as the OIPC and ISAP; however, only a few experts
referred to relying on and/or involving such organizations in their management processes for
treatment of invasives. In addition, NGOs were not mentioned in the identification of barriers.
This could indicate that such organizations as OIPC and ISAP are not yet well established
despite their potential to act as a key node for both information and future funding support for
ISM in Ontario. Secondly, translocation of species is a fundamental issue of invasive species.
The OISSP outlines actions for prevention that is connected with communication and
coordination amongst varying organizations and/or levels of government. Thirdly, the OISSP
reflects the initial steps taken by the MNR for support of invasive species management. While
the strategic plan was published in May of 2012, such documents can take time to become
established as pilot tests; inclusion of all stakeholders and analyzing results are only some of the
steps included in examination of all aspects of the plan.
In regards to the remaining barriers, all include valid arguments in explaining the
complexity of ISM implementation. Of the barriers identified, the majority of experts
interviewed indicated funding and capacity as the key barriers to successful implementation.
Funding and capacity are interconnected, as increased funding enables an organization to employ
and access more resources that in turn can increase ability to provide capacity.
68
Most importantly, several barriers identified in Table 5 require a shift in the current
approach to ISM in order to utilize current organizations to their utmost potential. Some experts
labeled ‘lack of support from provincial government ministries’ as a barrier to ISM; however,
none of the experts indicated specifically ‘lack of clear guidance for successful ISM’. While
there is evidence of interest and increased involvement in ISM, all stakeholders are functioning
on personal interpretation of best practice for ISM, rather than engaging in a coordinated
management scheme. Throughout the interview process, experts referred to other stakeholders as
also being involved in ISM, but did not have a clear understanding of what their specific role and
responsibility was as it relates to other agencies. A fundamental flaw in the current action for
ISM is the lack of a coordinated approach for a cross-jurisdictional issue. Restructuring of
current approaches for ISM could be the answer to mitigating several of the barriers listed in
Table 5. The following section will offer suggestions for an alternative framework for guidance
of invasive species management that aims to include all stakeholders at various levels. This
framework is comprised of the findings from the surveys and interviews conducted for this
research.
69
CHAPTER 9.0: FRAMEWORK SUGGESTIONS
Low-level coordination and lack of strategic approach act as a burden to rapid response
initiatives, which are characteristic of many regulatory documents for invasive species
management. New governance regimes can offer a solution to some of the current challenges
that are presented in the implementation of ISM. Such an approach is unique because it
challenges traditional management approaches, encourages innovation, process redesign, and
reconnection with stakeholders (Durant et al., 2004). Consolidating the efforts of many
organizations and agencies that represent existing lines of authority into a joint approach through
a hybrid, multi-level framework offers options for ISM that are adaptive and feasible.
Expert interviews highlighted many barriers; however, the following suggestions are
tailored to focus on a distinct set: capacity, coordination, knowledge and understanding, and lack
of support from provincial government. While some of these issues were touched on in the
OISSP, this framework illustrates how a shift in the responsibilities and roles of each stakeholder
offers a more coordinated, structured approach to ISM. Using a network approach, the goal of
this framework is to: 1) identify capacity and mandates of each involved stakeholder and 2) to
identify how action is executed at each level.
Figure 8 is a graphic representation of an alternative framework for invasive species
management. Contrary to historical involvement, the provincial government no longer has the
capacity to prepare and lead action on the ground for invasive species. Therefore, it is imperative
to view the process through a holistic perspective that requires many key stakeholders working
collaboratively to achieve successful results.
70
Figu
re 8
: Alte
rnat
ive
Fram
ewor
k fo
r ISM
.
71
Level of involvement is the first subsection of the framework, which illustrates the key
stakeholders involved in invasive species management in Ontario. Reciprocating arrows are used
to illustrate the nature of the relationship between each stage, to symbolize sharing of
information, and expertise among each level. These arrows ultimately indicate communication
among the various levels. The colours of the different stakeholder levels are significant; these
show the increasing complexity as one moves through the framework that includes both an
increase of individuals that are involved, a wider base of expertise, and an increase of possible
issues that may arise. Private property owners are highlighted in the deepest shade of red because
there are currently few avenues for enforcement on privately owned land. Additionally, arrows
are connected from both the municipal and the Conservation Authority levels, as both of these
agencies are resources available to the public.
In addition, the ‘NGO involvement?’ element is included to show the potential for
inclusion of non-government organizations. While the framework focuses on government and
government related organizations, such as the CAs, the diagrams within Section 6.0 showed a
reliance on NGOs for ISM. There are many NGOs that manage invasive species at a small scale,
but their level of engagement for each of the NGOs was beyond the scope of this research.
However, these organizations have the potential to relieve pressure on other organizations that
may not have sufficient capacity. In addition, such organizations also have the potential to induce
widespread change through engaging in collaborative and coordinated efforts as a joint coalition.
The subsections are: scope, primary responsibility, and primary role. The scope column
addresses the perspective and approach of each level. As discussed in Section 8.2.1, there are
two types of approaches in which ISM is currently understood: the ecosystem approach or the
standalone/species-specific approach. The primary responsibility column addresses function,
72
which can also be understood as the primary goal of each level. To connect previous concepts
with the suggested framework, the ‘scope’ and ‘primary responsibility’ columns are both
examples of the process aspect, whereas the ‘primary role’ subsection is an example of the
substance aspect. The ‘primary role’ column is related to the ‘primary responsibility’ column,
but differs because it is focused on the specific tasks and actions to be carried out at each level of
implementation.
9.1 Provincial Level
Figure 9: Provincial position in the suggested framework.
Several experts identified frustration with a lack of support from the provincial
government. However, as functionality and responsibility of the provincial government has
changed over time so to have the responsibilities of each involved agency in ISM. Figure 9
illustrates the scope, responsibilities, and roles of the province in the suggested framework. For
example, traditionally the provincial government provided funding and capacity that enabled
involvement on which many levels of government relied. With increased financial constraints
and reduced staff, a shift in the perception of the provincial government must change as well.
The provincial government has the capacity to act as a guiding body, one that produces
documents and policy in which subsequent levels of government and involved agencies can
follow. In the suggested framework, the provincial scope would focus on the ecosystem
73
approach, in order to ensure longevity and preserve biodiversity. This approach is one that the
province has already initiated with the creation of the OISSP.
In addition to the OISSP, the provincial responsibility in the suggested framework would
be to provide a more detailed set of systematic guidelines for all species. This would include a
comprehensive inventory of species within Ontario, prioritization by the urgency of certain
species, preferred habitats, importance of species role to preserving biodiversity and
functionality within ecosystems, and known threats to species. Additional responsibilities of the
provincial government would also include measures that could be taken to reduce human
disturbance, identification of preferred ecosystems and vegetation for specific species, and
associated legislation and/or direction for further information. Compiled information in which
these details are covered could then be distributed to Conservation Authorities and
municipalities. While the province may be viewed as a guiding body, it is imperative that
expertise is also sought from the municipal levels in which implementation is set out. This would
include accepting criticism and suggestions from Conservation Authorities and municipalities in
a constructive manner, working towards consensus. To smooth this process, designated
personnel (suggested one from each municipality and one from each conservation authority)
could act as a medium for communication in order to allow for progress in a timely fashion while
ensuring the input from all stakeholders. Subsequently, the primary role of government
would be to provide technical and financial support to Conservation Authorities and, further, to
municipalities. The technical support could be offered in a series of three modes: 1) through the
initial details discussed above, 2) through an online database or registry of IS sightings and
management schemes, and 3) through available expertise offered to inquires from both the public
74
and other involved agencies. Due to the capacity at this level, reference to the latter expertise
would be to direct inquiries to the appropriate organization or level for further information.
9.2 Conservation Authority Level
Figure 10: Conservation Authority position in the suggested framework.
As a quasi-government agency, Conservation Authorities possess much knowledge and
expertise about the functionality of government with some enforcement role, as well as an
understanding of biodiversity and ecosystem function that is not characteristic of other levels. In
ISM, the position of the Conservation Authorities is a mediating body between the provincial
government and municipal level of government that can transfer information and expertise, as
shown by the various entering arrows shown in Figure 10. Identified through the expert
interviews, it was highlighted that Conservation Authorities have more access to funding and
increased resources that possess more focused expertise on biodiversity than the average
municipality. Therefore, the scope of the CAs is to focus on local ecosystems and species-
specific planning for their jurisdictions. This can become complex as CAs are divided by
watershed and vary in regards to municipal boundaries. However, having a transparent approach
that is grounded in communication with neighbouring jurisdictions is the key to success at all
levels.
The primary responsibility of CAs is to provide reports of activity occurring within their
jurisdictions. Examples of the reports and information that would be part of the responsibility of
75
the CAs may include, but is not limited to: progress reports for site-specific projects, publishing
success stories following the monitoring stages, and “lessons-learned” reports for sites using
experimental methods. As was currently noted by experts, additional reports and
information/activity sessions hosted by CAs would also prove to be a beneficial time to relay this
information to municipal informants as well as the public. This information must be relayed to
the municipalities as well as affected property owners, as both of these levels rely on guidance
from the CAs in the suggested framework.
Additional roles include: diagnose infested sites, create and manage plans for eradication
or treatment, and monitor the site after treatment has been practiced. As a mediating body, the
CAs main function in the suggested framework is to transfer information between provincial
government and municipal government. Due to their unique role with both an expertise in
knowledge as well as enforcement powers, CAs play a key role in the capacity for invasive
species management.
9.3 Municipal Level
Contrary to the provincial government and the CAs, the suggested framework enlists the
municipal scope in ISM as one that focuses on standalone/species-specific plans, shown in
Figure 11. This is largely due to the lack of capacity and funding that has been made available to
municipalities. As local government, responsibilities are divided among many other issues that
Figure 11: Municipal position in the suggested framework.
76
result in fewer available resources to focus on invasives. Some experts stated that many
municipalities rely on the assistance and support of weed inspectors and bylaw enforcement
officers, as well as external consultants to prepare inventory maps in which they can be used to
direct future management plans. Additionally, such expertise from these personnel is also relied
on for management and implementation of complex and larger-scale issues. Therefore, the scope
of the municipal level should be on specific species plans such as emerald ash borer
prevention/management or other large infestations that have predominantly negative effects if
spread is rapid and over a large geographic area.
The primary responsibility of the municipal level is to approach invasive species in an ad
hoc form – assessing and preparing plans for individual species on a site-by-site basis. This
requires analysis of affected sites, the preparation of reports, and transfer of information to
private property owners if need be; as well as the sharing of information with CAs.
Communication and coordination with the CAs is key, particularly for species-specific plans, as
CAs (according to the suggested framework) also have involvement with species-specific plans.
The main difference at this level is that the municipal level would focus on larger scale issues
and higher species prioritization with the assistance of consultants and enforcement agents. By
shifting support to other key stakeholders, the pressure on local government can be reduced,
particularly where insufficient capacity may exist. The primary role of the municipal level would
be carried out through responsibilities that include, but are not limited to, delegation and
implementation, as well as the transfer of information pending reports.
77
9.4 Private Property Level
The private property level stage shown in Figure 12 is the most difficult scale to manage
invasive species, but is a level that is necessary to include in suggested framework. Due to the
limitations of the current Weeds Act, only properties that are designated as agriculture are
subject to conformity under the Act. While legislation is generally produced to minimize threat,
private property can pose a significant threat to the translocation of species because landowners
may be unaware or unwilling to treat the issue, particularly when the financial burden rests solely
on them. Currently, the CAs are more involved in engaging and encouraging residents to be
aware of their property ecosystems through sending out mail and hosting events. While the role
of a property owner will vary based on the decisions of each individual owner, the role of private
property owners is to monitor activity on their personal property. Many experts acknowledged
primary contacts for inquiring/informing about possible invasive sites were from private property
owners. Evidently, this shows that some property owners are cognizant of the activity occurring
on their property. In many cases, property owners may need to become educated or need
assistance in identifying a new species, whether invasive or not, but making the effort for contact
in order to do so is the primary step. In cases where a private property owner initiates contact
with the appropriate agency for a confirmed invasive species, the responsibility of the private
property owner would be to respond to further management. This would include working with
the appropriate agency for a management plan and/or implementing a form of treatment with the
Figure 12: Private property owner’s position in the suggested framework.
78
assistance of either municipal officials or conservation authority experts. Despite the efforts of
the property owner, municipalities or conservation authorities do not take financial
responsibility; it would therefore be the responsibility of either agency to offer or make residents
aware of options for financial compensation. Without this support, there is a risk that property
owners would disregard further management because private property owners are not required to
conform to management under any relevant Acts (for those properties other than designated
agriculture).
9.5 Suggested Framework for Enforcement
Figure 13: Enforcement Avenues for Implementation of ISM
79
Figure 13 highlights the current personnel involved in the execution of invasive species
management in Ontario. Weed inspectors and bylaw enforcement are primarily involved in
ensuring, where it applies, conformity under the Act is met. Weed inspectors particularly have a
broad set of enforcement powers. If a property owner of designated agricultural land fails to
comply with the Act, the municipality can remove the weeds and the property owner is billed. If
the property owner fails to pay for the removal, the municipality has the right to add the current
cost to the property taxes of that property (OFA, 2013). On the contrary, external consultants can
be, but are not limited to, third party companies or experts that are contracted to complete
projects where there is a lack of resources or expertise by the hiring agency. As discussed earlier,
enforcement personnel were included in the expert interviews in which all acknowledged
willingness to participate more actively in invasive species management. While such roles are
appointed through either provincial or municipal governments, the suggested framework
includes these experts as additional avenues of expertise in the structure for implementation.
These experts have a working knowledge and understanding of management methods, a
developed network of other experts, and the skills to implement plans.
A barrier to the performance of relying on such experts is lack of licensed pesticide
applicators and persons that have the required expertise. In Ontario, it is not illegal to own
pesticides; however, it is illegal to use pesticides without having a pesticide license. Obtaining a
pesticide license can be costly, time consuming, and complex, as there are many options for the
type of license being applied for. Therefore, the inclusion of such personnel in the suggested
framework is to act as support to the municipalities and conservation authorities on a smaller
scale such as a site-by-site basis.
80
CHAPTER 10.0: RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the suggested framework, changes to current legislation and regulation for
enforcement could have a profound effect on the functionality and effectiveness of the suggested
framework. As discussed previously, current legislation related to invasive species focuses on
agricultural land but lacks guidance for all other designated land uses in which invasive species
may become introduced and established. Section 5.2 probes into the complexity of legislation as
well as a lack of standardized terminology, which indicates that invasive species regulation is not
yet well-understood. Also highlighted through the expert interviews, two barriers to the
shortcomings of current legislation were identified: 1) limitations of current
legislation/regulation for enforcement and 2) lack of related policy. Both of these identified
barriers could be solved with the creation and implementation of policy solely focused on
invasive species. Such policy would identify key agencies, scope of each level, roles and
responsibilities, outline management approaches, and most importantly identify enforcement
avenues. Policy would need to be tailored to lower-tier government because the capacity of
provincial government cannot meet the full needs of the invasive species issue in Ontario.
An additional avenue that could be taken with the introduction of new policy is the
requirement for recognition of invasive species policy and management as content covered in
municipalities’ Official Plans. This approach would allow for public criticism and suggestions
through the Official Plan review and would present clear and transparent documentation to
Conservation Authorities and the provincial government about a jurisdiction’s commitment to
prevention and mitigation. As an additional avenue for enforcement, the property standards
bylaw is another option for enforcement for managing invasive plants specifically.
81
Lastly, the provincial government could move towards banning the sale of invasive plants
in Ontario. Expert interviews identified the difficulty of having shared priorities for invasive
species management between various levels of government, in which some had experienced
municipal employees planting invasive plants despite the encouragement of native plants.
Removing the possibility to purchase invasive plants is a tactic to ensure the safekeeping of
biodiversity and the preservation of current ecosystems. Despite a movement towards a ban, the
sale of invasive plants does not remove the possibility of purposeful introduction but it does
reduce the threat of increased introduction as well as the translocation of species.
82
CHAPTER 11.0: LIMITATIONS
The following section will focus on the limitations of the study from two aspects.
Subsequently, suggestions for future research will be made based on the lessons learned from
this research.
Methodological limitations
1) Lack of prior research studies on the topic: While much research has been completed on the
approaches of invasive species management, there is an absence on analyzing the connection
between approach and implementation. Prior to this research, a research study on invasive
species management in Ontario (Canada) exploring these connections had not yet been
accomplished. Lack of prior research could be due to the relatively new field of invasive species
management as well as the available resources, growing expertise, and capacity.
Researcher Limitations
1) Access: Access to experts was a difficult task throughout this research study. Initially, the
difficulty rested in finding the appropriate personnel who were responsible for leading invasive
species activity within a jurisdiction. Secondly, the primary data collection occurred during the
summer months (June-August), a time when many are involved in field research and
management methods. Additionally, while there are some agencies that are designated to
invasive species management, established networks of experts across various types of agencies
(NGOs, municipal government, etc.) were not accessible for the purposes of this research.
83
2) Longitudinal effects: The nature of this study occurred over a year and a half during which all
requirements were completed. As the OISSP was only introduced in May of 2012, sufficient time
has not passed in order to analyze and explore the effects of such a plan. Local governments, the
public, and NGOs have not seen the plan implemented or further updates about the status of the
plan, making it difficult to measure change over time. This study interviewed many experts that
offered their personal experiences based on past experiences that did not include having any
involvement with the provincial strategy.
84
CHAPTER 12.0: SUMMARY AND FURTHER RESEARCH
This research determined a baseline of information about the scale of involvement of
lower-tier municipalities and associated agencies. Through surveys and expert interviews,
participants shared experiences with ISM thus far, providing commentary about aspects affecting
success. Barriers identified by experts are among the most important findings as they outline
necessary challenges that, if reduced or removed, could drastically change both the approach and
results of invasive species management in Ontario. The suggested framework provides a
standardized approach that encompasses possible solutions to the identified barriers as well as
provides a clear structure for guidance.
This study identified a number of variables that are important to the process and
substance of ISM, which would benefit from more research. Using a longitudinal design would
allow for a more detailed analysis and increased accessibility to a wider range of experts. This
research study had a focus on municipal and quasi-government organizations, but a similar study
could be replicated with the inclusion of publicly-formed environmental groups and other non-
governmental organizations. As seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5, there is a reliance on non-
government groups for management of invasive species. Further research is needed on the
potential for NGOs to produce legislative and regulatory change that is needed for invasive
species management in Ontario. Evidence shows that ISM is not a top priority at the municipal
level as well as insufficient resources and capacity. Therefore further research focused on NGOs
could provide more detailed information about the depth of ISM research and activity.
Additionally, future research in the context of Ontario would also be beneficial following the
implementation of the OISSP provincial strategy.
85
REFERENCES
All Ontario. (2013). Municipal by-laws in Ontario. Retrieved from http://allontario.ca/2013/05/municipal-by-laws-in-ontario/. Baker, R., Cannon, R., Bartlett, P., and Barker, I. (2005). Novel strategies for assessing and managing the risks posed by invasive alien species to global crop production and biodiversity. Journals of Applied Biology, 146(2), 177-191. Benvenisti, E. and Downs, G.W. (2007). The Empire’s new clothes: Political economy and the fragmentation of international law. Stanford Law Review, 60(2), 595–632. Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Colding, J. (Eds.). (2000). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Canada: Cambridge University Press. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Van Asselt, H., and Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14-40. Bodansky, D. (1991). Law: Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 33(7), 4-44. Brewer, M.J. and Goodell, P.B. (2012). Approaches and incentives to implement integrated pest management that addresses regional and environmental issues. Annual Review of Entomology, 57, 41-59. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). (2013). Invasive plants in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-protection/invasive plants/eng/1306601411551/1306601522570 Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC). (2012). Integrated pest management (IPM) strategies. Retrieved from http://www.hortcouncil.ca/uploads/file/English/Crop%20Plant%20Protection%20and% 0Environment/Integrated_Pest_Management_Strategies_Eng.pdf Carrasco, L.R., Cook, D., Baker, R., MacLoed, A., Knight, J.D., and Mumford, J.D. (2012). Towards the integration of spread and economic impacts of biological invasions in a landscape of learning and imitating agents. Ecological Economics, 76, 95-103. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2001). Review of the efficiency and efficacy of existing legal instruments applicable to invasive alien species. (CBD Technical Series No. 2). Montreal, Canada: Secretariat on the Convention of Biological Diversity. Duit, A. and Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity—emerging issues for governance theory. Governance, 21(3), 311-335.
86
Durant, R.F., Chun, Y., Kim, B., and Lee, S. (2004). Toward a new governance paradigm for environmental and natural resources management in the 21st century? Administration and Society, 35(6), 643-682. Durant, R.F., Fiorino, D.J., and O'Leary, R. (2004). Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Evans, J.M., Wilkie, A.C., and Burkhardt, J. (2008). Adaptive management of nonnative species: Moving beyond the “either-or” through experimental pluralism. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 21(6), 521-539. Glasbergen, P. (1998). The question of environmental governance. In P. Glasbergen (Ed.). Co Operative environmental governance (pp. 1-20). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Government of Canada. (2004). An invasive alien species strategy for Canada. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada. Gray, M. E., Ratcliffe, S. T., Rice, M. E., Swinton, S. M., Norton, G. W., Higley, L. G., ... & Ponti, L. (2009). The IPM paradigm: concepts, strategies and tactics. In Radcliffe, E.B., Hutchison, W.D., and Cancelado, R.E. (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and Case Studies (1-13). Canada: Cambridge University Press.
Halton Region. (2012). Invasive Species Fact Sheet. Retrieved from www.halton.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=19813 Hey, C., Jacob, K., and Volkery, A. (2007). Better regulation by new governance hybrids? Governance models and the reform of European chemicals policy. Journal of cleaner Production, 15(18), 1859-1874. Inqram, H.M. and Ullery. (1980). S.J. Policy innovation and institutional fragmentation. Policy Studies Journal, 8(5), 664-68b.
IUCN. (2007). Guidelines for applying the precautionary principle to biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. Retrieved from http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ln250507_ppguidelines.pdf
Jordan, A. and Lenschow, A. (2010). Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147-158. Keller, R.P., Geist, J., Jeschke, J.M., and Kuhn, I. (2011). Invasive species in Europe: Ecology, status and policy. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23(23), 1-17. Larson, D.L., Phillips-Mao, L., Quiram, G., Sharpe, L., Stark, R., Sugita, S., and Weiler, A. (2011). A framework for sustainable invasive species management: Environmental, social and economic objectives. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(1), 14-22.
87
Lafferty, K.D. and Kuris, A.M. (1996). Biological control of marine pests. Ecology, 77(7), 1989 2000. Mooney, H.A. and Cleland, E.E. (2001). The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(10), 5446-5451. National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO). (2008). Invasive alien species. Retrieved from http://www.naro.go.ug/Invasive%20plants/index.html Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA). (2013). Weed control: Who do you call? Retrieved from http://www.ofa.on.ca/issues/overview/Weed-Control-Who-Do-You-Call Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF). (2012). Least wanted: Brown marmorated stink bug. Retrieved from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/bmstinkbug.htm Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). (2012). Ontario invasive species: Strategic plan 2012 (OISSP). Peterborough, ON: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). (2013). The role of conservation authorities. Retrieved from http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Water/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_165435.html. Panizzi, A.R. (2013). History and contemporary perspectives of the integrated pest management of soybean in Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, 42(2), 119-127. Park, K. (2004). Assessment and management of invasive alien predators. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 12-19. Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., and Kluvankova-Oravska, T. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks, and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 148-158. Pejchar, L. and Mooney, H.A. (2008). Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well being. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 497-504. Pimental, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. (2004). Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics, 52(3), 1-16. Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(1), 155-169. Santillo, D., Johnston, P., and Stringer, R. (1999). The precautionary principle in practice: A mandate for anticipatory preventative action. Protecting public health and the
88
environment: Implementing the precautionary principle (36-50). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Shine, C., Williams, N., and Gundig, L. (2000). A guide to designing legal and institutional frameworks on alien invasive species. Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 40. IUCN- Environmental Law Centre.A contribution to the Global Invasive Species Programme, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Gland Switzerland.138 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS). (2009). Managing invasive plants: Concepts, practices, and principles. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/invasives/staffTrainingModule/getting_started.html Vitousek, P.M., D’Antonio, C.M., Loope, L.L., and Westbroks, R., (1996). Biological invasions as global environmental change. Conservation and Ecosystem Management, 84(5), 218 228. Williams, B.K., Szaro, R.C., and Shapiro, C.D. (2009). Adaptive Management: The U.S. department of the interior technical guide. Retrieved from http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf Wilson, J.R.U., Gairifo, C., Gibson, M.R., Arianoutsou, M., Bakar, B.B., Baret, S., Celesti Grapow, L., DiTomaso, H.M., Dufour-Dror, J.M., Kueffer, C., Kull, C.A., Hoffmann, J.H., Impson, F.A.C., Loope, L.L., Marchante, E., Marchante, H., Moore, J.L., Murphy, D.J., Tassin, J., Witt, A., Zeni, R.D., and Richardson, D.M. (2011). Risk assessment, eradication, and biological control: Global efforts to limit Australian Acacia invasions. Diversity and Distributions, 17(5), 1030-1046.
89
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Partners and Legislation currently associated with invasive species.
Partners Federal Legislation that addresses invasive species Canada Border Services Agency Canadian Food Inspection Agency Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Government of Canada Parks Canada Transport Canada
Canada National Parks Act Canada Shipping Act Canada Wildlife Act Canadian Environmental Protection Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Department of Natural Resources Act Fisheries Act Forestry Act Oceans Act Pest Control Products Act Plant Protection Act Seeds Act Transportation of Goods Act Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act
90
Appendix B: Sample of initial contact with all municipalities and conservation authorities in Ontario.
91
Appendix C: Research information for expert informants.
RESEARCH SUMMARY
Negative impacts of invasive species on the environment, economy, and society are increasing
worldwide. These negative impacts are causing upwards of $34.5 billion annually in Canada.
Particularly in Ontario, where population is growing rapidly in urbanized areas with high volume
of trade imports and its geographic landscape, the province is subject to increased susceptibility
of invasive species. However, with a lack of specific regulatory frameworks and the issue of
institutional fragmentation across municipalities in Ontario has resulted in an uncoordinated
approach to tackle invasives as a cross-jurisdictional issue. This research aims to explore current
frameworks, in both national and international contexts, in order to create a more focused
framework that outlines approaches for response to invasive species. In addition, this research
aims to develop suggestions for policy and alternative policy vehicles that may be used to guide
implementation of invasive species management.
INTERVIEW INFORMATION
Through a literature review, case studies were identified by the current invasive species strategic
plans/frameworks, within Canada and internationally. Online versions of the identified
frameworks for the case study analysis are clear and concise, outlining the process aspect of the
strategic plans/frameworks, but raise questions about the substance. It is expected that interviews
of experts from each of the case studies will provide insight regarding: 1) the hierarchy of
management authority, 2) elaborate on connections with other involved
groups/agencies/government, 3) explain the approach for prevention/reporting process, 4)
highlight barriers, and 5) discuss opportunities for improvement.
92
Appendix D: Examples of questionnaires circulated prior to interviews being conducted.
Municipal Invasive Species Questionnaire
Purpose: These questions are focused on the management plans/reports/strategies that have been created by many municipalities for invasive species management. The intent is to better understand the motivations for the creation of such plans/reports/strategies, the dynamics and logistics of how such plans are carried out, and to identify the barriers that municipalities are faced with from a management perspective. *For the following questions, the term ‘management plan’ may refer to informal species-specific plans, reports, or strategies that have been created or prepared within the municipality. Questions: 1) Of the management plans that your municipality has created, which invasive species do they address? 2) Who was involved in creating the management plan? 3) Who is involved in implementing the management plan? (i.e. What specific positions, such as a Weed Inspector, are involved in carrying out the management plan) 4) Is the management plan(s) used strictly as an internal resource or are those guidelines also available as a public resource? 5) Does your municipality rely on NGOs, volunteers, or other external organizations in carrying out management plans for invasive species? 6) Were higher levels of government, such as the MNR, involved in the creation of your management plans? 7) Did your municipality consider creating a broader invasive species plan rather than a species-specific management plan? If not, how come? 8) What are the barriers that your municipality is faced with in terms of invasive species management?
Additional Questions for Enforcement Personnel (Weeds Inspector, Bylaw Enforcement Officer, etc.) 1) What is your role in the process of invasive species management? 2) Is there specific personnel that normally notifies you of an invasive species detection? (i.e. landowner, municipal contact, NGOs, etc.)
93
3) Upon arriving at a site visit, is there a process you follow for assessment? If so, what is this process? 4) Following your assessment, who do you follow up with for management of invasive species? 5) What are barriers are you faced with and what changes could be made to make your position less difficult?
